4 ms·

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

by aethr 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago
  And if they can gimp their competitors at the same time, bonus!
- ohyeshedid 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago
Google isn't defining anything unilaterally - the Coalition for Better Ads is. https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/
- hackuser 9y ago
  Yes, but there are probably other standards that Google's ads don't meet, and Google isn't using those.
  - sooheon 9y ago
    Like tracking of user data.
    - ethics_gradient 9y ago
      Is this sarcastic?
- rmc 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago
      Or tech companies could put themselves under EU data protection law.

by aethr 9y ago

bpicolo 9y 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 9y ago
And if they can gimp their competitors at the same time, bonus!
ohyeshedid 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago

Google isn't defining anything unilaterally - the Coalition for Better Ads is. https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/

hackuser 9y ago
Yes, but there are probably other standards that Google's ads don't meet, and Google isn't using those.
- sooheon 9y ago
  Like tracking of user data.
  - ethics_gradient 9y ago
    Is this sarcastic?
rmc 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago
    Or tech companies could put themselves under EU data protection law.