8 ms·

The "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

by kesor 10y ago

The "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 10y ago
More like duopoly: It's Google and Facebook. Facebook has probably less than 1/3 of Google's ad revenue.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  Does facebook serve ads outside of facebook?
ehsankia 10y ago
I 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 10y 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 10y ago
    If 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.
    - lucb1e 10y ago
      It doesn't need to be spoken out loud, it's kinda obvious. I too would make it sound like this is totally not the reason. And for the record, I don't think everyone at Google is evil, but I imagine a few managers are in it for the money and not merely the altruistic idea of making ads better.
      - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
        >It doesn't need to be spoken out loud, it's kinda obvious. On the contrary, it is completely obvious that Google has very little to gain from shaving a few percentage points off competitors and incur the risk of regulatory action. The greatest danger they face is ad blockers and a general decline of the Web. If Google is in it for the money they must save the Web from death by advertising.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      They can probably avoid the competition issues by creating the ad-blocker but not lining it to an ad list, then providing a "choose an ad-block list" option? The same way MS created the browser-choice screen!?
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  Yeah I'm generally pro billboard like advertisement - websites need to earn some money off visits and that's acceptable. Ads that drive me on a different page, cover the full page unless closed or otherwise hamper navigation unless I interact with them first can die in a firey hell. I've uBlock but youtube and other content creators sites that so far hasn't annoyed me with ads are free to go. I.e. Looking For Group started serving to mobile page redirecting ads, so they went in the blacklist, but until then they were free to serve whatever.
- muse900 10y ago
  Or another example of how I see ads on the internet: You walking down the street having a guy handing out leaflets, trying to force his leaflet on you... You're most likely to get annoyed by them. There is a little stand at the corner having leaflets, without anyone yelling in your face or handing it out, you're more likely to go grab one if the product fits you. Walking to work every morning I have created my real life AdBlock, where I just ignore people handing stuff. (Not their fault... just businesses not understanding how to change ways)
  - snackai 10y ago
    Well here comes Google, shoving leaflets up your ass because they think their leaflets are special and more acceptable!
- cjmb 10y ago
  Google-owned YouTube is the main reason I use uBlock, though. I don't care how "good" the ad is really. 15 seconds is an eternity in this age...
6t6t6t6 10y ago
> They are not trying to put "ad blocker" companies out of business. They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business. This. Internet is creating massive monopolies that are gathering an immense power that allow them to kill any other company that tries to compete with them. It's starting to be scary...
- sangnoir 10y ago
  On one hand, I doubt Google would be so bold, considering the amount of attention they are currently getting from the European Commissioner of Competition. If Marine le Pen wins on the other hand...
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    This might be so, but I don't see it primarily as a problem with Google. I see it as a problem with the European Union, which is too much about French policies and politics and way of political operation. Perhaps electing Le Pen might actually do some good to it by forcing others to change?
    - forvelin 10y ago
      I think parent meant if LePen is elected, there won't be a EU to cause trouble in the long run?
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        You are correct - that is what I meant.
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        EU is an extremely weak political construction if the change of president in one member country, via democratic election and staying in democratic system, nullifies the whole union. A democratic political union must be based on stronger foundations than just having a couple of sister parties sharing the power in turns.
corobo 10y ago
If those competing internet ad companies are the ones that take over the entire page and redirect me to other pages.. Good riddance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, scummy ad companies.
- drdeca 10y ago
  Project wonderful ads are a competitor to Google ads, and are, imo, vastly superior to some sorta of ads which I believe (?) are Google ads.
  - corobo 10y ago
    I think the problem Project Wonderful has is that they suffer from poor quality ads (no big company uses them) and poor quality publishers (no big numbers see them) In my mind they're the "I can't afford Adsense" ad company, their website interface feeds into that too.
    - drdeca 10y ago
      Really? To me they read as ads that are more concerned with keeping the interests of the users of the website in mind. Also, the pricing system seems quite nice, a continuous second-price auction. It all seems very "fair".
syrrim 10y ago
They can't be trying to do that, because it would be blatantly anti-competitive, as their lawyers would tell them. They might let google ads through, but if so they will let through other ad companies as well. The EU would have some choice words for them if they didn't.
- kesor 10y ago
  Sure they can. Do first, answer questions later.
- kalmari 10y ago
  on by default but can be turned off. most things that have been argued have been locked that way in one way or another.
- michaelt 10y ago
  I agree it sounds like it /ought/ to be anti-competitive - but for years they've got away with Gmail's inscrutable spam-blocking system giving reduced deliverability to non-gmail senders.
- josefx 10y ago
  > The EU would have some choice words for them if they didn't. Which will take years and the fine will be a pitance of the profit. Microsoft got away with anti-competitive behavior several times in the past and they came out better than before. Google can use the time to try to kill of any competition before anyone will stop it, get a slap on the wrist and it will be back to business as usual.
batuhanw 10y ago
This sounds like conspiracy. They can not block certain companies keep their ads unblocked. They will/should block certain type of ads, popups redirects malwares etc. Also it is easier to block google ads with 3rd party. Since ridiculous ads will be blocked natively, performance will be better I think.
- samdoidge 10y ago
  > They can not block certain companies keep their ads unblocked. Any technical reason why they couldn't?
Arnt 10y ago
Google's an ad company, and ad companies are doing bad things, enough so that there's a backlash. So it makes sense for Google to deploy bad-stuff-blocking in Chrome and then reconfigure its own ad business to not be affected. Those who don't adapt are killed by the backlash, but that's hardly Google's fault. A concrete example: Chrome is in a position to block those who use canvas/webgl fingerprinting for user tracking, and Google's ad business can avoid being blocked by not doing that.
- Arnt 10y ago
  And indeed: "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.”"
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  Stopping fingerprinting is virtually impossible.
lmm 10y ago
Your tone would be ridiculous even if you were right. Google already has what, 90% marketshare? They don't need to put their competitors out of business and would gain very little from doing so (their real competition is probably Facebook and they're fundamentally much harder to apply an adblocker to, since they control both the content and the advertising). Google do need to stop the existential threat to the whole industry that adblockers represent.
- sametmax 10y ago
  Grinding on 10% marketshare by just adding a new feature to one of their product ? Most company would dream of that.
- jiiam 10y ago
  Yep, but the market itself would increase in size if people start adopting a first party solution (which would certainly be the case since people are lazy), and looking at adblockers usage rates it seems like a market share too big to pass on. In the end, it is probably true that the competition is not really an issue, but Google need not "stop the existential threat to the whole industry that adblockers represent", because if it lets too many ads pass people will simply get back to the old third party adblockers.
2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
A good reason to use a browser not built by an ad company - Firefox or Safari - where there are no conflicts of interest.
- Arnt 10y ago
  Safari. Firefox is overwhelmingly dependent on Yahoo for income, and Yahoo is an ad company.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    Firefox have done major browser-chrome changes (unremovable buttons) in order to court financial incentives too. FF is my main browser out of habit but with their recent history I don't trust them not to try and sell out their users [again].
    - 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
      Can you be specific? Overall I feel that Firefox is sufficiently customisable, that it's probably the easiest browser to protect your privacy in and control content. I like Safari, but customisation is harder to do.

by kesor 10y ago

lobster_johnson 10y ago

More like duopoly: It's Google and Facebook. Facebook has probably less than 1/3 of Google's ad revenue.

throwaway91111 10y ago
Does facebook serve ads outside of facebook?

ehsankia 10y ago

I 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 10y 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 10y ago
  If 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.
  - lucb1e 10y ago
    It doesn't need to be spoken out loud, it's kinda obvious. I too would make it sound like this is totally not the reason. And for the record, I don't think everyone at Google is evil, but I imagine a few managers are in it for the money and not merely the altruistic idea of making ads better.
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      >It doesn't need to be spoken out loud, it's kinda obvious. On the contrary, it is completely obvious that Google has very little to gain from shaving a few percentage points off competitors and incur the risk of regulatory action. The greatest danger they face is ad blockers and a general decline of the Web. If Google is in it for the money they must save the Web from death by advertising.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    They can probably avoid the competition issues by creating the ad-blocker but not lining it to an ad list, then providing a "choose an ad-block list" option? The same way MS created the browser-choice screen!?
LoSboccacc 10y ago
Yeah I'm generally pro billboard like advertisement - websites need to earn some money off visits and that's acceptable. Ads that drive me on a different page, cover the full page unless closed or otherwise hamper navigation unless I interact with them first can die in a firey hell. I've uBlock but youtube and other content creators sites that so far hasn't annoyed me with ads are free to go. I.e. Looking For Group started serving to mobile page redirecting ads, so they went in the blacklist, but until then they were free to serve whatever.
muse900 10y ago
Or another example of how I see ads on the internet: You walking down the street having a guy handing out leaflets, trying to force his leaflet on you... You're most likely to get annoyed by them. There is a little stand at the corner having leaflets, without anyone yelling in your face or handing it out, you're more likely to go grab one if the product fits you. Walking to work every morning I have created my real life AdBlock, where I just ignore people handing stuff. (Not their fault... just businesses not understanding how to change ways)
- snackai 10y ago
  Well here comes Google, shoving leaflets up your ass because they think their leaflets are special and more acceptable!
cjmb 10y ago
Google-owned YouTube is the main reason I use uBlock, though. I don't care how "good" the ad is really. 15 seconds is an eternity in this age...

6t6t6t6 10y ago

> They are not trying to put "ad blocker" companies out of business. They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business. This. Internet is creating massive monopolies that are gathering an immense power that allow them to kill any other company that tries to compete with them. It's starting to be scary...

sangnoir 10y ago
On one hand, I doubt Google would be so bold, considering the amount of attention they are currently getting from the European Commissioner of Competition. If Marine le Pen wins on the other hand...
- ptaipale 10y ago
  This might be so, but I don't see it primarily as a problem with Google. I see it as a problem with the European Union, which is too much about French policies and politics and way of political operation. Perhaps electing Le Pen might actually do some good to it by forcing others to change?
  - forvelin 10y ago
    I think parent meant if LePen is elected, there won't be a EU to cause trouble in the long run?
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      You are correct - that is what I meant.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      EU is an extremely weak political construction if the change of president in one member country, via democratic election and staying in democratic system, nullifies the whole union. A democratic political union must be based on stronger foundations than just having a couple of sister parties sharing the power in turns.

corobo 10y ago

If those competing internet ad companies are the ones that take over the entire page and redirect me to other pages.. Good riddance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, scummy ad companies.

drdeca 10y ago
Project wonderful ads are a competitor to Google ads, and are, imo, vastly superior to some sorta of ads which I believe (?) are Google ads.
- corobo 10y ago
  I think the problem Project Wonderful has is that they suffer from poor quality ads (no big company uses them) and poor quality publishers (no big numbers see them) In my mind they're the "I can't afford Adsense" ad company, their website interface feeds into that too.
  - drdeca 10y ago
    Really? To me they read as ads that are more concerned with keeping the interests of the users of the website in mind. Also, the pricing system seems quite nice, a continuous second-price auction. It all seems very "fair".

syrrim 10y ago

They can't be trying to do that, because it would be blatantly anti-competitive, as their lawyers would tell them. They might let google ads through, but if so they will let through other ad companies as well. The EU would have some choice words for them if they didn't.

kesor 10y ago
Sure they can. Do first, answer questions later.
kalmari 10y ago
on by default but can be turned off. most things that have been argued have been locked that way in one way or another.
michaelt 10y ago
I agree it sounds like it /ought/ to be anti-competitive - but for years they've got away with Gmail's inscrutable spam-blocking system giving reduced deliverability to non-gmail senders.
josefx 10y ago
> The EU would have some choice words for them if they didn't. Which will take years and the fine will be a pitance of the profit. Microsoft got away with anti-competitive behavior several times in the past and they came out better than before. Google can use the time to try to kill of any competition before anyone will stop it, get a slap on the wrist and it will be back to business as usual.

batuhanw 10y ago

This sounds like conspiracy. They can not block certain companies keep their ads unblocked. They will/should block certain type of ads, popups redirects malwares etc. Also it is easier to block google ads with 3rd party. Since ridiculous ads will be blocked natively, performance will be better I think.

samdoidge 10y ago
> They can not block certain companies keep their ads unblocked. Any technical reason why they couldn't?

Arnt 10y ago

Google's an ad company, and ad companies are doing bad things, enough so that there's a backlash. So it makes sense for Google to deploy bad-stuff-blocking in Chrome and then reconfigure its own ad business to not be affected. Those who don't adapt are killed by the backlash, but that's hardly Google's fault. A concrete example: Chrome is in a position to block those who use canvas/webgl fingerprinting for user tracking, and Google's ad business can avoid being blocked by not doing that.

Arnt 10y ago
And indeed: "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.”"
throwaway91111 10y ago
Stopping fingerprinting is virtually impossible.

lmm 10y ago

Your tone would be ridiculous even if you were right. Google already has what, 90% marketshare? They don't need to put their competitors out of business and would gain very little from doing so (their real competition is probably Facebook and they're fundamentally much harder to apply an adblocker to, since they control both the content and the advertising). Google do need to stop the existential threat to the whole industry that adblockers represent.

sametmax 10y ago
Grinding on 10% marketshare by just adding a new feature to one of their product ? Most company would dream of that.
jiiam 10y ago
Yep, but the market itself would increase in size if people start adopting a first party solution (which would certainly be the case since people are lazy), and looking at adblockers usage rates it seems like a market share too big to pass on. In the end, it is probably true that the competition is not really an issue, but Google need not "stop the existential threat to the whole industry that adblockers represent", because if it lets too many ads pass people will simply get back to the old third party adblockers.

2muchcoffeeman 10y ago

A good reason to use a browser not built by an ad company - Firefox or Safari - where there are no conflicts of interest.

Arnt 10y ago
Safari. Firefox is overwhelmingly dependent on Yahoo for income, and Yahoo is an ad company.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Firefox have done major browser-chrome changes (unremovable buttons) in order to court financial incentives too. FF is my main browser out of habit but with their recent history I don't trust them not to try and sell out their users [again].
  - 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
    Can you be specific? Overall I feel that Firefox is sufficiently customisable, that it's probably the easiest browser to protect your privacy in and control content. I like Safari, but customisation is harder to do.