21 ms·
At 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 incred
by heavymark 9y ago
At 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 9y 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 9y agoUblock Origin is extremely popular and it's open source model keeps it from playing favorites with some "acceptable" ads.
- ziikutv 9y agoI do not consider dropping Ublock any time soon.
- heeey 9y agoThat's ok. If this plan works, a few years down the road Ublock will get dropped/disabled for you under some pretense when Google can claim they've got you covered for "ad blocking".
- debacle 9y agoYou're thinking far too 1984 when the answer is much more Brave New World - if the ad blocker in Chrome is good enough, people will just stop supporting UBlock.
- CoryG89 9y agoNo one supports uBlock. Browsers would have to specifically block the extension if they wanted to keep people from using it.
- untog 9y ago> Browsers would have to specifically block the extension if they wanted to keep people from using it. Which Google have done to other extensions many times.
- etatoby 9y agoYes, it's possible—I would say probable—that after introducing their "impartial" ad blocker, whose rules for acceptable ads just so happen to allow all of their ads through, and after enabling it by default on their browser, they will actively block all other ad blockers, on "privacy and security" grounds.
- colordrops 9y agoNaw, Google has precedent for this sort of behavior, going so far as removing plugins from their web store and quietly uninstalling them from Chrome with no notification when the plugin interfered with their business model. They actively uninstalled video download plugins without notification to the user a couple years back. Nefarious.
- Sylos 9y agoAdBlock Plus is also open-source. Same license as uBlock Origin and everything. They just haven't pissed off anyone enough to get a big fork going. Or their code just wasn't good enough, as obviously uBlock Origin is currently doing the same and was written from scratch.
- ehsankia 9y agoI'm not sure why everyone in this thread is just assuming this is true. The only source the article provides is "according to people familiar with the company’s plans". And it's from the WSJ... the same people that went behind Google's back and went to their advertisers trying to ruin their reputation. I don't know, I feel like this is another attempt by them to stir shit.
- kesor 9y agoSurely Google will next come out with a "Fake News" filter for browsers that will just block wsj.com for all Chrome users.
- rewrew 9y agoThe Wall Street Journal employs highly reputable journalists with excellent sources. Basic journalism standards for this would require confirmation from three separate sources before publishing. And it's the WSJ -- they don't publish it on a whim, they publish it because it's news they believe to be true.
- felipeerias 9y ago– I just learned that there are people using our Web browser who don't see our ads. And even worse, they might be seeing our competitors' ads! – Maybe we could act as gatekeepers so our competitors have to go through us to advertise on our browser? We could wrap it as "only letting in the nice ads" or whatever… – Brilliant!
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Nition 9y agoYeah, that's what the article speculates is the plan as well.
- forgotpwtomain 9y agoOn mobile Chrome does not support extensions while Firefox does. Recently on acquiring a new phone I used Chrome for a few days -- I had entirely forgotten how terrible the user-experience is without UBlock!
- CoryG89 9y agoI always suspected the reason we never got extensions in mobile Chrome is that they didn't want the ad blockers. I wasn't aware that Firefox mobile started supporting them. Going to give it a try.
- petre 9y agoOpera mobile also has an integrated ad blocker but I also use a hosts file to filter just about everything.
- JCharante 9y agoI thought it was because most app stores didn't allow apps to download code to be executed.
- Dylan16807 9y agoWhat app store does that other than Apple's? And a rule like that doesn't allow full web browsers so it's unrelated to the question of whether full web browsers have extensions.
- icebraining 9y agoNah, that's just Apple's. Google Play has always been much less restrictive.
- coldpie 9y agoFirefox for Android is really good. Most passive browsing extensions work just as well on mobile as they do on desktop.
- bobajeff 9y ago
- QuinnyPig 9y agoI can't imagine this wouldn't lead to one hell of an antitrust lawsuit...
- sounds 9y agoI honestly doubt Google has thought of this. Their modus operandi appears to be (1) launch edgy experimental stuff, (2) forget it exists, (3) be reminded it exists, (4) ruin it by killing it or rewriting it.
- QuinnyPig 9y agoI can't shake the feeling that virtually every product decision at Google is made by an engineer.
- khana 9y agoAnd duefully not ruefully so.
- sqeaky 9y agoIs that bad? Or is it just different that what we are used to?
- QuinnyPig 9y agoIt's potentially idiotic in a context where there are non-engineering concerns at play, such as compliance, law, marketing, PR, etc. It exposes them to massive potential liability.
- solatic 9y agoThis. Corner the ad market and then work to eliminate all your competitors? The lawsuit practically writes itself.
- Chris2048 9y agoWhat if consumers want it, though? Opt-in?
- joe_the_user 9y agoI would love a blocker that just stopped pop-up and display adds. They make a lot of sites literally unusable. I don't mind ordinary display adds, I even like them in the sense that I like a web model that's sustainable.
- natoliniak 9y agoYep, we all have to eat, so i make a conscientious effort not to block ads, unless they are abusive (in particular autoplay and popups). To make most commercial websites usable, I simply disabled Autoplay in FF which silenced the most abusive screaming video ads and made surfing the web pleasant again. (about:config and set media.autoplay.enabled;false)
- LeoNatan25 9y agoOh yes, a lot of good it will do you, blocking ads after they infect you with malware. Let many starve; I'm not willing to risk it for the hunger of people that cannot find a sustainable business model other than advertisement garbage.
- petre 9y agoRats have to eat too. That doesn't mean I should feed them and keep them around the house.
- reitanqild 9y agoNo, but if you keep them as pets you should feed them? Not saying ad blockers are bad -I use them- just that your analogy breaks down quickly.
- literallycancer 9y agoPets make you more likely to buy poor quality products that you don't need or want?
- 9y ago
- pdog 9y agoIt's far more likely that Chrome's ad-blocking feature will be similar to the implementation of content blockers in Safari (introduced at a WWDC 2015 session)[1][2]. The new model for content blockers in Safari is faster and a lot more memory efficient because they're compiled into byte code. Content blockers are also more secure and better for privacy because they have no knowledge of the browsing that users are doing. The content-blocking rules are only provided by third parties. Google is probably doing this because it makes their browser faster—not because of some wild conspiracy to show more advertisements. [1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/General/Conceptual/ExtensibilityPG/ContentBlocker.html https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Ge... [2]: https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2015/?id=511 https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2015/?id=511
- SquareWheel 9y agoYou're being downvoted, but I'd actually agree. My guess is this idea originated from the Chrome team in an effort to improve the browsing experience. Google rarely makes unilateral decisions from the top down to product teams. They mostly operate independently.
- HappyTypist 9y agoThat's true, but every Googler knows how much of their pay check and RSUs come from ad revenue.
- iainmerrick 9y agoGoogle rarely makes unilateral decisions from the top down to product teams. Apart from shutting them down.
- runeks 9y agoTo be fair, relying on product teams to shut themselves down, in case they've hit a dead-end, probably wouldn't work.
- 9y ago
- Coincoin 9y agoGoogle are the one who made me install AdBlocker. I was tired of getting the same obnoxious and annoying unskippable 30 seconds ad for a long series of 45 seconds videos on youtube.
- andreyf 9y agoPay for YT Red?
- kesor 9y agoThe "ad blocker" companies will go out of business? ARE YOU INSANE?! Google is a frigging AD MONOPOLY ... its their major business for crying out loud. And the same company that controls a HUGE portion of all the Internet Ad business is creating an "Ad Blocker". And this doesn't ring any bells anywhere? No friend, they are not trying to put "ad blocker" companies out of business. They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business.
- lobster_johnson 9y agoMore like duopoly: It's Google and Facebook. Facebook has probably less than 1/3 of Google's ad revenue.
- throwaway91111 9y agoDoes facebook serve ads outside of facebook?
- ehsankia 9y agoI don't think it's about putting "ad blockers" out of business. Hell, they're not businesses, uBlock is OSS. I think the idea is, people get so annoyed by poor ads that is in your face that they get pushed beyond their "threshold" and get an ad blocker. If ads are used with moderation, most people won't get annoyed enough to go out of their way and install a traditional ad blocker. Bad ads ruin it for Google. They teach users to mentally block ALL ads. It's like people abusing antibiotics and building a resistance.
- lucb1e 9y ago> Bad ads ruin it for Google. That might be why someone proposed it. But your parent comment mentions why management approved of the risky move: > They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business.
- fauigerzigerk 9y agoIf there is even just a whiff of that, Google will be in very big trouble with competition authorities. So if - and that is a big if - Google goes ahead with this plan, they will have to make absolutely sure that any blocking is based on objective and simple to understand quality criteria.
- slantaclaus 9y ago*their
- nickpsecurity 9y ago"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." Probably a good call. I've actually suggested they do this before. I doubt it made it to them given it was on a private forum. It's amusing to see it happening, though. It's an extension of monopolistic practices where one blocks out all competition to give their own self an advantage.
- m-p-3 9y agoIMO it could be a dangerous move for them, especially if they mostly block their competitor's ads and land themselves in an antitrust lawsuit or something similar.
- grigjd3 9y agoI suspect adtech companies may partner to make better ads for consumers.
- TheKarateKid 9y agoGoogle will probably do it in a very open way like they do when they try to enforce other web standards. They will probably clearly post criteria for what makes an ad acceptable or not and state that Chrome will block it if it doesn't meet them. Or maybe Chrome will show them but somehow punish the webmaster like they do to sites that don't use HTTPS or have mobile friendly pages.
- vaishaksuresh 9y agoI like how you see positive in this move, but all I can think of is this. Google will enable ads from google and block everything else. This is their way of killing the competition. I think it is unfair and risky. I don't want google or anybody else deciding what is acceptable ad for me. Even if it is not distracting or passes google's standard of 'good' ad, it should still be my choice that determines if I see it or not. This is why I'm not going back to Chrome and not going to stop using ad blocker extensions and the network wide ad-blocker at home.
- tannhaeuser 9y agoExactly. Not wanting to bash Google, but it's not in their best interest to block Google Ads is it? What'll happen is that Google Ads will be served using some super-sophisticated cloaking setup making AdBlockers ineffective on all but Google Ads. Like https, this will put alternative ad networks out of business. It's not even difficult to do so, by eg. serving pages from a Google-controlled CloudFlare-like proxy service and/or a high-profile Google-style HTML-to-JavaScript encoder. Google's AMP project shows they're willing to throw the decentralized web under the bus. The real question is: are you ok with ad-financed web sites in general, but have a problem with tracking (like me)? If so, we should really come up with a community-driven criteria for Acceptable Ads, or should disable un-vetted/not-whitelisted JavaScript alltogether.
- etatoby 9y ago> we should really come up with a community-driven criteria for Acceptable Ads Isn't that what ABP / Eyeo is doing? You may criticize them for the fee they ask of the Ad companies to include / review their ads, but it's not like the fees are unfair or they aren't doing work that needs to be paid somehow. They even set up a non profit to deal with this matter. > or should disable un-vetted/not-whitelisted JavaScript alltogether. This is already being developed by the FSF as a Firefox extension. It makes the modern web completely unusable (of course) but it's the principle that counts, right? > Like https, this will put alternative ad networks out of business. How did https do anything like that?
- Eerie 9y ago>where other blockers by default can easily block all Google ads Adblock Plus, the most popular adblocker, does not block Google ads by default, because they are considered non-intrusive.
- Zarel 9y agoAs noted in the article, Google pays Adblock Plus an undisclosed amount of money to be considered non-intrusive. Adblock Plus is clearly not a neutral evaluator here.
- Eerie 9y agoAdblock Plus is pretty open about it. You can disable the option easily. And Google ads are, in fact, relatively non intrusive. I don't see the problem.
- Zarel 9y agoI'm not opposed to an exception for acceptable ads; I think it's a good idea. My only problem is that it seems to be a serious conflict of interest to accept money from ad providers for this.
- mtgx 9y agoIronically, this is what Microsoft should've done if it wanted to "hurt Google" years ago when it pushed for the useless Do Not Track feature by default (which advertisers were under no obligation to respect).
- scriptproof 9y agoIf only you have read the article, it is said thay will block popups, video and other annoying ads. These things are the main incentives to install a blocker. It is a smart move, and maybe a late move.
- Grangar 9y agoI wonder if the European Commission would deem this illegal.
- Fiahil 9y agoDidn't they first done something like this in the early 2000s ? Remember the google toolbar with a built-in pop-up blocker ? Sure, they did not have the same share in the advertising business as today, but I don't think it will be very damaging.
- onion2k 9y agoMy 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. I think that guess is wrong. I think Google will block their own ads. There are a few reasons why; 1. They're not stupid. The amount of trust lost in a move like that would be immense. It wouldn't be worthwhile. 2. They don't need to. They just need to make it switched off by default and 90% of users won't ever see it or use it. Only people who are interested will seek it out, and those people are already seeking ad-blocking extensions. 3. Other browsers are implementing it. Google need to include it to stop users who are interested in that feature switching browser. 4. Google need data. They get value from tracking people even if they're not seeing adverts. By blocking the ads specifically, even their own adverts, they still get to track users and derive value from that data. Other ad blocking technology will also block Google's tracking mechanisms, and they really don't want that to happen. 5. Given the fact they have a effective monopoly on adverts on the main web the lost revenue from blocked ads will have a bigger impact on their competitors than them. Google can afford to lose far more ad impressions than the next, much smaller network. They can block their own ads and still drive their competitors out of business. That said, I don't think Google are evil enough to do that. I'm just saying they don't need to let their own ads through if the plan is to kill off the competition.
- dceddia 9y ago> Other ad blocking technology will also block Google's tracking mechanisms, and they really don't want that to happen. Good point. After using uBlock Origin for a while now, "ads" have become synonymous with "tracking scripts" to me. I'd bet Google's adblocker wouldn't block Google Analytics from running, like uBlock does.
- joshyi 9y agoDefinitely they won't. I'm sticking with uBlock.
- rainbowmverse 9y agoYou can get a plugin to block Google Analytics right from Google: https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout
- tyingq 9y agoSounds risky to me. It specifically says mobile, an area where current ad blocking is cumbersome and clunky. So if it's any good at blocking Google ads, it costs them money. If it blocks ads other than Google ones well, and allows Google ones to display, then they run the risk of lawsuits or antitrust action.
- _pmf_ 9y ago> It's a very risky move on Google's part What? By know, people are accustomed to Google flip flopping on key decisions; this will be just another instance.
- Asooka 9y agoAs long as it blocks the YouTube video ads, people won't install another one. Which would be an interesting move - block the most annoying ads, because otherwise people would block all your ads, but leave them there for the people who don't block ads at all.
- nommm-nommm 9y agoYouTube is owned by Google so Google isn't going to block their own ads.
- on_and_off 9y agoI have no share in Google but I have been waiting for such an ad blocker for years : I don't want to block all ads I want an ad blocker that protects me from popunder (is there any point to those ?) popups, autoplay videos, ad walls and other shitty ads that make my experience awful. I don't want an adblocker that blocks everything by default and where I have to manually white list all the sites I consult regularly. I already spent a while on some really good blogs before realizing that adblock was killing all their ads for no reason.
- stordoff 9y ago> popunder (is there any point to those ?) I recall reading that the original intention of popunder ads was to provide a degree of separation between the site content and the ad, as you see the ad. isolated rather than directly next to the site content. By doing so, the ad. provider has to worry less about their brand appearing next to content they may find objectionable.
- sp332 9y agoYou can do this with any of the popular adblockers (including uBlock Origin) that work with filter lists. They come with a default set of lists, but you can disable those and only subscribe to lists that block annoyances, malware, or whatever else you want.
- lerpa 9y agoAdds built-in ad blocker, removes competition from Chrome extensions store/site or even blocks installing them altogether though the browser.
- ts330 9y agoI suspect this will lead to ads not being served via the site's code own code, but rather by Chrome overlaying the ads into the site using placeholders defined by the site. By controlling the ad experience at this level (and this possibly being the only way to avoid being blocked), Google can enforce an ad-experience that is akin to in-feed facebook ads. It also provides a far greater level of security around the ad unit and a far better level of accurate targeting (cookies don't get used, your login does). These two things together provide a new way to interact / monetise those ad units.
- 23443463453 9y agoI disagree that it's a risky move at all. I have been saying that the first person that can establish a kind of validation of ads will dominate the space. It's only … unfortunately … expected that Google would finally come around to this. They have nothing to loose and everything to win. Just like you said, they are going to block all the "bad" ads, which will also allow them to control messaging and information access even. We've already seen Google ad network being used as a political tool to undermine and attack ideological opponents. It will really only further enslave the whole internet, communications, and democracy as a whole to Google and further allow them to create a kind of exo-state corporate government that controls what you see and suppress what they don't want you to see for a whole host of reasons, which will even more increasingly become political than they have been. We have seen it just this last election where Google inserted itself into politics and has been actively working to, undermine ideological opponents by cutting their ad revenue, and is actively involved in propagandizing people where it can through sanctimonious altruism masking the underlying reality that they are censoring on political grounds that side with those they share interests with. It's quite ironic what is happening these days as the machinations are quite a bit the same as they were in the 1920s-1930s Europe, which led to all sorts of problems including the rise of the very same kind of authoritarianism that today equally claims that hey are acting in the best interest of the people and are sanctimoniously self-righteous. Google does not evil, right? See, we're all fine, because they have our best interest in mind, because they told us so and when I googled snopes for an answer, snopes clearly told me that there was nothing to the claim otherwise.
- stephenr 9y agoThe article clearly says it's about blocking "bad" ads, as deemed so by the ad industry. > The ad-blocking feature, which could be switched on by default within Chrome, would filter out certain online ad types deemed to provide bad experiences for users as they move around the web. > Unacceptable ad types would be those recently defined by the Coalition for Better Ads, an industry group that released a list of ad standards in March. 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.”
- flashman 9y ago"Nice ad you've got there... be a shame if something were to happen to it..." Implication: Want your ads shown to people? Don't risk another provider, serve them through Google.
- stephenr 9y agoI don't think it's quite as nefarious as that. Essentially, I believe Google and a subset of their industry competitors (other ad networks) have two goals here: 1. to stem the losses imposed by 100% ad/tracking blockers, by providing a default blocker that deals with very obnoxious ads that might prompt average users to install one of the existing ad blockers. 2. to reduce their need to pay protection money to AdBlock plus etc. So, if you happen to be using ads that are overly obnoxious (popups, autoplaying videos, etc) then yeah, your message is basically what they're saying, but not because it's non-google, just because it's making the other ad networks look bad. I don't know how they'll implement it technically, but the fact that they are not talking about the WebKit-style content blocking using compiled pattern lists means they probably have little interest in benefitting end-users (webkit content blockers give better privacy, performance, battery life etc, compared to traditional "run this code every time a website loads" blockers)
- wheelerwj 9y ago> Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. this is exactly how it would go. This is anything but benevolent, this is another one of googles blatant anti-trust maneuvers to force you deeper into their walled-garden.
- ahmetyas01 9y agoThis is a very smart but also very slow move.