9 ms·

I like it too, but isn't Google in a conflict of interest here?

by oDot 10y ago

libria 10y ago
The opposite, I would say. Google has strict guidelines for ad creative content and polices its ads as well; they're almost certainly above their own bar. So this is essentially threatening to block everyone else, or at least those behaving poorly.
- JohnTHaller 10y ago
  Fairly well. As someone who uses AdSense and has had site users report bestiality ads, you can't automate quality ad content.
- aethr 10y ago
  That is the conflict of interest. It's hard to see how this isn't going to strengthen their position in the ad serving market. Google being able to define where the bar for "badly behaving" is set means that only their competitors will be hurt by this.
  - bpicolo 10y ago
    I wonder if the motivation isn't a bit more subtle than that. My guess would be they're hoping to improve ads across the web so that people turn off ad blockers in general.
    - xienze 10y ago
      And if they can gimp their competitors at the same time, bonus!
    - ohyeshedid 10y ago
      Perhaps it is, but if there were the case why wouldn't they start by cleaning up their own platforms? There are several angles to be wary of. Locking out competitors, replacing competitor ads with their own, forcing sites to migrate to, or back to, Google ad networks, etc.
      - _eht 10y ago
        Working with Google ads for over seven years as a publisher, they have one of the cleanest ad networks in the game. On top of that, you can preview every single ad that is shown with your account and block accordingly. I agree, they need to thread carefully, but things need to change, and that change needs to come from two angles: publishers whoring out their users and ad networks not taking responsibility for what they let on their networks.
        mkl 10y ago
        > you can preview every single ad that is shown with your account and block accordingly. Really? I've never used Google ads, so for all I know you're right, but why would none of the ~600 comments in the previous discussion [1] mention that? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14094083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14094083
        _eht 10y ago
        https://support.google.com/adxseller/answer/4587864?hl=en https://support.google.com/adxseller/answer/4587864?hl=en I'm on the Adx platform, which was invite only a few years back. It has some differences to Adsense, but I believe ad review and transparency with what creatives are displayed is part of both cores. If I were to guess, there were 600 people in the thread who were not actually publishers using Google ads.
    - pwg 10y ago
      This is very likely the reason this has suddenly appeared in Chrome. Google's revenue relies on ads. Too many internet users blocking too many ads directly threatens Google's revenue stream. The recent sudden upsurge in ad-blocking would, from a Google perspective, look like an existential threat to their very existence. And what would be one reasonable response that a company reliant on ads for income who also happens to produce a browser used by a huge number of users look like when they realize this existential threat exists? Well, one reasonable response would be exactly this, a "kill the misbehaving ones" addition to that browser in hopes of heading off the threat before it becomes a true, company killing, result. Only time will tell if this change in mindset on their part actually results in heading off the eventual outcome.
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    Google isn't defining anything unilaterally - the Coalition for Better Ads is. https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Yes, but there are probably other standards that Google's ads don't meet, and Google isn't using those.
      - sooheon 10y ago
        Like tracking of user data.
        ethics_gradient 10y ago
        Is this sarcastic?
    - rmc 10y ago
      That's an industry body from big advertisers, like Google. I'm pretty sure "Don't store user data" isn't included in that "standard"
      - freehunter 10y ago
        What we need is a Sarbanes-Oxley for the Internet. If you track users and store their data, you have to be Internet-SOX compliant to prove you're handling it in a responsible way. Especially with the anti-fraud protections on credit cards these days, storing PII and browsing history is a lot more dangerous than a credit card breach.
        rmc 10y ago
        Or tech companies could put themselves under EU data protection law.
- artursapek 10y ago
  > So this is essentially threatening to block everyone else I think this is what he meant by conflict of interest
  - libria 10y ago
    Hm yeah, a moment after I hit submit I realized this. So I guess I made the parents point.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Google's AdMob routinely shows me "virus scan now!" and "extend battery!" with full flashing yellow and red. They've also hosted fake download ads for e.g. Skype.
- kbody 10y ago
  You probably missed this: http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-ads/ http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-... Adsense has its more than fair share of low quality ads. Of course, you can't compare it to popups/sound-ads etc. but compared to the past, it's certainly way lower. (Keep in mind the experience varies wildly based on your profile. Geo etc.)
- _eht 10y ago
  As a publisher with a significant number of ad requests monthly this would be a godsend. I just spent the last week tracking down ads that were maliciously redirecting my mobile traffic off my site. Turns out it was coming from a network called Sovrn, which is ironically a member of betterads.org and apparently "recently added an extra layer of protection from malware and redirects, all of [their] creatives are pre-scanned before they are served."
dcow 10y ago
No because all of their ads will meet standards. I wouldn't be surprised if a competing lower-quality ad agency sues Google over this.
- haukilup 10y ago
  Why are you saying no, then proceeding to make the parent's point for them?
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > their ads will meet standards If something else on the page doesn't, presumably Chrome will block Google's ads too.
- mpeg 10y ago
  Google is an ad network, not an ad agency. All ads should meet the Initial Better Ads Standards at the very least, we're not talking about creative quality here, we're talking about reducing user pain that things like fullscreen ads, autoplays, popups... create. It's a good start, but consumers deserve a better ad experience for approved formats too.
- kyledrake 10y ago
  It will meet their "standards", which in the past have not prevented Google ads from being used for a lot of different types of nasty, malicious activity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
- sjg007 10y ago
  Except it's your device, you can choose to block ads.
  - kesor 10y ago
    And what about the grandmother of the guy next door? What about the other 99.999% of internet users who are not you?
- rosege 10y ago
andrewmutz 10y ago
It is interesting. It seems to me that it could be considered to be monopoly abuse and it also seems to be pro-consumer. A strange combination.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > It seems to me that it could be considered to be monopoly abuse and it also seems to be pro-consumer. The move only is pro-consumer where it benefits Google's bottom line: Blocking competitors ads, using a standard that Google easily meets. It's similar to when countries block agricultural imports that don't meet a standard that is unique to their domestic industry, in the name of "safety". For example, I don't expect Google to block ads that violate users' privacy by tracking them. But I hope they surprise me!
  - pooper 10y ago
    > The move only is pro-consumer where it benefits Google's bottom line: Blocking competitors ads, using a standard that Google easily meets. It's similar to when countries block agricultural imports that don't meet a standard that is unique to their domestic industry, in the name of "safety". I never thought of this implementation but I imagine this is one of the few ways Google can bundle in ad blocking in Chrome. As long as third party blockers (specifically uBlock Origin https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode for me) I don't mind. I go back and forth to using Mozilla Firefox mostly because I use it on Android but I appreciate all that Google has done to move the web forward.
- hectormalot 10y ago
  Not such a strange combination in my view. As i see it, Google's customers are (for a large part) advertisers, and their product is the ability to get ads in front of people (and to get people to click on them). In the economical sense you could even argue that Google users are 'suppliers' (of eyeballs and clicks) Monopoly abuse can of course impact both suppliers as well as customers, but in this case it's probably more likely to only impact advertisers. - As individuals we can switch to other search engines and browsers, so it's difficult to abuse a monopoly that way. - However, as long as we keep using Google, advertisers might have no other option to get a reach this valuable. So Google could possibly exploit its position towards advertisers. (e.g. Favor its own ads over other ad networks). Still looks like a net win for end users.
tdb7893 10y ago
As long as they don't disallow other ad blockers I'm okay with it.
bitmapbrother 10y ago
How so? If the ad does not abide by the Coalition for Better Ads standards then it's not displayed. And if your ad doesn't meet those standards then you probably shouldn't be advertising with Google.

I like it too, but isn't Google in a conflict of interest here?

by oDot 10y ago

I like it too, but isn't Google in a conflict of interest here?

The opposite, I would say. Google has strict guidelines for ad creative content and polices its ads as well; they're almost certainly above their own bar. So this is essentially threatening to block everyone else, or at least those behaving poorly.

JohnTHaller 10y ago
Fairly well. As someone who uses AdSense and has had site users report bestiality ads, you can't automate quality ad content.
aethr 10y ago
That is the conflict of interest. It's hard to see how this isn't going to strengthen their position in the ad serving market. Google being able to define where the bar for "badly behaving" is set means that only their competitors will be hurt by this.
- bpicolo 10y ago
  I wonder if the motivation isn't a bit more subtle than that. My guess would be they're hoping to improve ads across the web so that people turn off ad blockers in general.
  - xienze 10y ago
    And if they can gimp their competitors at the same time, bonus!
  - ohyeshedid 10y ago
    Perhaps it is, but if there were the case why wouldn't they start by cleaning up their own platforms? There are several angles to be wary of. Locking out competitors, replacing competitor ads with their own, forcing sites to migrate to, or back to, Google ad networks, etc.
    - _eht 10y ago
      Working with Google ads for over seven years as a publisher, they have one of the cleanest ad networks in the game. On top of that, you can preview every single ad that is shown with your account and block accordingly. I agree, they need to thread carefully, but things need to change, and that change needs to come from two angles: publishers whoring out their users and ad networks not taking responsibility for what they let on their networks.
      - mkl 10y ago
        > you can preview every single ad that is shown with your account and block accordingly. Really? I've never used Google ads, so for all I know you're right, but why would none of the ~600 comments in the previous discussion [1] mention that? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14094083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14094083
        _eht 10y ago
        https://support.google.com/adxseller/answer/4587864?hl=en https://support.google.com/adxseller/answer/4587864?hl=en I'm on the Adx platform, which was invite only a few years back. It has some differences to Adsense, but I believe ad review and transparency with what creatives are displayed is part of both cores. If I were to guess, there were 600 people in the thread who were not actually publishers using Google ads.
  - pwg 10y ago
    This is very likely the reason this has suddenly appeared in Chrome. Google's revenue relies on ads. Too many internet users blocking too many ads directly threatens Google's revenue stream. The recent sudden upsurge in ad-blocking would, from a Google perspective, look like an existential threat to their very existence. And what would be one reasonable response that a company reliant on ads for income who also happens to produce a browser used by a huge number of users look like when they realize this existential threat exists? Well, one reasonable response would be exactly this, a "kill the misbehaving ones" addition to that browser in hopes of heading off the threat before it becomes a true, company killing, result. Only time will tell if this change in mindset on their part actually results in heading off the eventual outcome.
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  Google isn't defining anything unilaterally - the Coalition for Better Ads is. https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Yes, but there are probably other standards that Google's ads don't meet, and Google isn't using those.
    - sooheon 10y ago
      Like tracking of user data.
      - ethics_gradient 10y ago
        Is this sarcastic?
  - rmc 10y ago
    That's an industry body from big advertisers, like Google. I'm pretty sure "Don't store user data" isn't included in that "standard"
    - freehunter 10y ago
      What we need is a Sarbanes-Oxley for the Internet. If you track users and store their data, you have to be Internet-SOX compliant to prove you're handling it in a responsible way. Especially with the anti-fraud protections on credit cards these days, storing PII and browsing history is a lot more dangerous than a credit card breach.
      - rmc 10y ago
        Or tech companies could put themselves under EU data protection law.
artursapek 10y ago
> So this is essentially threatening to block everyone else I think this is what he meant by conflict of interest
- libria 10y ago
  Hm yeah, a moment after I hit submit I realized this. So I guess I made the parents point.
MichaelGG 10y ago
Google's AdMob routinely shows me "virus scan now!" and "extend battery!" with full flashing yellow and red. They've also hosted fake download ads for e.g. Skype.
kbody 10y ago
You probably missed this: http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-ads/ http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-... Adsense has its more than fair share of low quality ads. Of course, you can't compare it to popups/sound-ads etc. but compared to the past, it's certainly way lower. (Keep in mind the experience varies wildly based on your profile. Geo etc.)
_eht 10y ago
As a publisher with a significant number of ad requests monthly this would be a godsend. I just spent the last week tracking down ads that were maliciously redirecting my mobile traffic off my site. Turns out it was coming from a network called Sovrn, which is ironically a member of betterads.org and apparently "recently added an extra layer of protection from malware and redirects, all of [their] creatives are pre-scanned before they are served."

dcow 10y ago

No because all of their ads will meet standards. I wouldn't be surprised if a competing lower-quality ad agency sues Google over this.

haukilup 10y ago
Why are you saying no, then proceeding to make the parent's point for them?
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> their ads will meet standards If something else on the page doesn't, presumably Chrome will block Google's ads too.
mpeg 10y ago
Google is an ad network, not an ad agency. All ads should meet the Initial Better Ads Standards at the very least, we're not talking about creative quality here, we're talking about reducing user pain that things like fullscreen ads, autoplays, popups... create. It's a good start, but consumers deserve a better ad experience for approved formats too.
kyledrake 10y ago
It will meet their "standards", which in the past have not prevented Google ads from being used for a lot of different types of nasty, malicious activity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
sjg007 10y ago
Except it's your device, you can choose to block ads.
- kesor 10y ago
  And what about the grandmother of the guy next door? What about the other 99.999% of internet users who are not you?
rosege 10y ago

andrewmutz 10y ago

It is interesting. It seems to me that it could be considered to be monopoly abuse and it also seems to be pro-consumer. A strange combination.

hackuser 10y ago
> It seems to me that it could be considered to be monopoly abuse and it also seems to be pro-consumer. The move only is pro-consumer where it benefits Google's bottom line: Blocking competitors ads, using a standard that Google easily meets. It's similar to when countries block agricultural imports that don't meet a standard that is unique to their domestic industry, in the name of "safety". For example, I don't expect Google to block ads that violate users' privacy by tracking them. But I hope they surprise me!
- pooper 10y ago
  > The move only is pro-consumer where it benefits Google's bottom line: Blocking competitors ads, using a standard that Google easily meets. It's similar to when countries block agricultural imports that don't meet a standard that is unique to their domestic industry, in the name of "safety". I never thought of this implementation but I imagine this is one of the few ways Google can bundle in ad blocking in Chrome. As long as third party blockers (specifically uBlock Origin https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode for me) I don't mind. I go back and forth to using Mozilla Firefox mostly because I use it on Android but I appreciate all that Google has done to move the web forward.
hectormalot 10y ago
Not such a strange combination in my view. As i see it, Google's customers are (for a large part) advertisers, and their product is the ability to get ads in front of people (and to get people to click on them). In the economical sense you could even argue that Google users are 'suppliers' (of eyeballs and clicks) Monopoly abuse can of course impact both suppliers as well as customers, but in this case it's probably more likely to only impact advertisers. - As individuals we can switch to other search engines and browsers, so it's difficult to abuse a monopoly that way. - However, as long as we keep using Google, advertisers might have no other option to get a reach this valuable. So Google could possibly exploit its position towards advertisers. (e.g. Favor its own ads over other ad networks). Still looks like a net win for end users.

tdb7893 10y ago

As long as they don't disallow other ad blockers I'm okay with it.

bitmapbrother 10y ago

How so? If the ad does not abide by the Coalition for Better Ads standards then it's not displayed. And if your ad doesn't meet those standards then you probably shouldn't be advertising with Google.