5 ms·

I 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 a

I 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 ago
Ublock Origin is extremely popular and it's open source model keeps it from playing favorites with some "acceptable" ads.
- ziikutv 10y ago
  I do not consider dropping Ublock any time soon.
  - heeey 10y ago
    That'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 10y ago
      You'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 10y ago
        No one supports uBlock. Browsers would have to specifically block the extension if they wanted to keep people from using it.
        untog 10y 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 10y ago
        Yes, 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 10y ago
        Naw, 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.
        ziikutv 10y ago
        * Download Ublock zip * Enable Developer Options * Add Ublock package zip * Enable in Incognito as well TL;DR: Them removing it would be a dick move, but not end of the world. We can still install any packages we want.
        apostacy 10y ago
        I think you are severely misunderstanding the situation. Google can do whatever they want. They've already demonstrated that they have no problem installing things on your computer that you never would have otherwise agreed to. That, and they don't take no for an answer with updates.
        etatoby 10y ago
        Do they? I just downgraded Chrome for Android to 56, because the latest one would crash when playing live video streams. Granted, Play Store didn't have that option, so I had to download the APK from a third-party site and disable automatic updates for it, but nothing prevented me from doing either thing.
        apostacy 10y ago
        Yes, you still can on Android. But Google has shown that they don't see anything morally wrong with using misleading updating tactics. And the range of what you have control over is shrinking. I commented about it about a month ago[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13950975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13950975
        10y ago
    - jiiam 10y ago
      If, by any chance, someone decide that its browser is already covered as far as adblockering goes, we will simply move to a different browser/adblocker/adblocking solution. As long as there is tech savy people there will be plenty of solutions around.
- Sylos 10y ago
  AdBlock 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 10y ago
I'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 10y ago
  Surely Google will next come out with a "Fake News" filter for browsers that will just block wsj.com for all Chrome users.
- rewrew 10y ago
  The 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 10y 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!

zeure 10y ago

Ublock Origin is extremely popular and it's open source model keeps it from playing favorites with some "acceptable" ads.

ziikutv 10y ago
I do not consider dropping Ublock any time soon.
- heeey 10y ago
  That'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 10y ago
    You'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 10y ago
      No one supports uBlock. Browsers would have to specifically block the extension if they wanted to keep people from using it.
      - untog 10y 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 10y ago
        Yes, 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 10y ago
      Naw, 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.
      - ziikutv 10y ago
        * Download Ublock zip * Enable Developer Options * Add Ublock package zip * Enable in Incognito as well TL;DR: Them removing it would be a dick move, but not end of the world. We can still install any packages we want.
        apostacy 10y ago
        I think you are severely misunderstanding the situation. Google can do whatever they want. They've already demonstrated that they have no problem installing things on your computer that you never would have otherwise agreed to. That, and they don't take no for an answer with updates.
        etatoby 10y ago
        Do they? I just downgraded Chrome for Android to 56, because the latest one would crash when playing live video streams. Granted, Play Store didn't have that option, so I had to download the APK from a third-party site and disable automatic updates for it, but nothing prevented me from doing either thing.
        apostacy 10y ago
        Yes, you still can on Android. But Google has shown that they don't see anything morally wrong with using misleading updating tactics. And the range of what you have control over is shrinking. I commented about it about a month ago[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13950975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13950975
        10y ago
  - jiiam 10y ago
    If, by any chance, someone decide that its browser is already covered as far as adblockering goes, we will simply move to a different browser/adblocker/adblocking solution. As long as there is tech savy people there will be plenty of solutions around.
Sylos 10y ago
AdBlock 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 10y ago

I'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 10y ago
Surely Google will next come out with a "Fake News" filter for browsers that will just block wsj.com for all Chrome users.
rewrew 10y ago
The 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 10y 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!