10 ms·

This is somewhat concerning to me. While I'm all for blocking obtrusive and obnoxious ads, I'm not sure I want Google using it's position as a web giant and bro

This is somewhat concerning to me. While I'm all for blocking obtrusive and obnoxious ads, I'm not sure I want Google using it's position as a web giant and browser vendor to push these standards by default via Chrome. An open web means I can host whatever (legal content) I want on my website and people are free to view it or not view it if they find it undesirable. Current ad blockers play well into this scheme because they protect the end user's right to view content in the way that they want. This move by Google on the other hand is telling websites that they have to play by Google's content rules or have their website broken by default. I'm not sure that's the web that I want to live in.

bitmapbrother 9y ago
These are ad standards agreed upon a consortium of companies.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  Were consumer advocacy groups included in that consortium?
  - a2decrow 9y ago
    Of course not. But even if they were, it'd be only for show. They wouldn't have a say in anything.
- redm 9y ago
  Of which Google is a founding member and the only traditional ad publisher (AdSense/AdX/etc) who serves ads to 3rd party properties. [1] I'm sure they have plenty of control to shape the standards to their benefit. In other words, the "consortium" is biased by Google themselves. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/coaltion-for-better-ads-launched-by-iab-google-unilever-2016-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/coaltion-for-better-ads-launc...
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    Are you sure about that? https://www.betterads.org/members/ https://www.betterads.org/members/ edit: I see you stealth edited your post.
- combatentropy 9y ago
  The Wall Street Journal is a member of the group, and on page load it covered the article with an ad.
Crontab 9y ago
This move is mainly about making sure their own ads don't get blocked because of people trying to escape the bad behavior of others. But like you, I have doubts about an ad blocker created by an advertising company.
- Animats 9y ago
  I have doubts about an ad blocker created by an advertising company. Right. Once Google gets this deployed, watch them remove ad-blocking add-ons from the Google Store.
  - leeoniya 9y ago
    i'm concerned about this as well, but i'm fine letting Chrome function simply as a dev tool and actually browse with Firefox, Opera, Servo, etc. w/uBlock Origin & uMatrix
    - wbl 9y ago
      Firefox has some pretty nice dev tool extensions.
      - Mayzie 9y ago
        It won't for long when they deprecate their extension API and move to Chromes...
        derefr 9y ago
        Presumably that won't mean that Firefox will only install extensions from the Chrome Web Store, though. addons.mozilla.org will continue to exist.
        clouddrover 9y ago
        The dev tools are built into Firefox by default. So what do you base your claim on?
wmf 9y ago
Chrome already has its TLS version treadmill and a blacklist of evil sites, so this is not really the first step down that slope.
- wheelerwj 9y ago
  no but it is a huge step. using your platform to block competitors is the definition of anti-trust.
  - clhodapp 9y ago
    Well... It's the sort of thing so-called anti-trust laws were designed to prevent but it's the definition of anti-competitive, not anti-trust.
abtinf 9y ago
Replace the word "ads" with "popups" in your comment and you would be making an argument for a return to a horrible era.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cm2187 9y ago
  In fact this "ad blocker" is more of a popup and auto play blocker. It doesn't really mean to block ads. And worse than that, it does nothing to block or even reduce the tracking of users. In fact I haven't seen a single new feature in Chrome that would make tracking more difficult. Rather the contrary.
  - flyingfences 9y ago
    > it does nothing to block or even reduce the tracking of users. In fact I haven't seen a single new feature in Chrome that would make tracking more difficult. Of course not. Google makes their money through ads; they wouldn't do anything that would hurt their money-making abilities.
- inimino 9y ago
  Popups and popunders were due to a browser feature (window.open) which was open to horrible abuse, and browsers were right to make this feature more restricted over time. Browsers fixing their own UI mistakes and browsers setting and enforcing rules for content are two entirely different things.

bitmapbrother 9y ago

These are ad standards agreed upon a consortium of companies.

ceejayoz 9y ago
Were consumer advocacy groups included in that consortium?
- a2decrow 9y ago
  Of course not. But even if they were, it'd be only for show. They wouldn't have a say in anything.
redm 9y ago
Of which Google is a founding member and the only traditional ad publisher (AdSense/AdX/etc) who serves ads to 3rd party properties. [1] I'm sure they have plenty of control to shape the standards to their benefit. In other words, the "consortium" is biased by Google themselves. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/coaltion-for-better-ads-launched-by-iab-google-unilever-2016-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/coaltion-for-better-ads-launc...
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  Are you sure about that? https://www.betterads.org/members/ https://www.betterads.org/members/ edit: I see you stealth edited your post.
combatentropy 9y ago
The Wall Street Journal is a member of the group, and on page load it covered the article with an ad.

Crontab 9y ago

This move is mainly about making sure their own ads don't get blocked because of people trying to escape the bad behavior of others. But like you, I have doubts about an ad blocker created by an advertising company.

Animats 9y ago
I have doubts about an ad blocker created by an advertising company. Right. Once Google gets this deployed, watch them remove ad-blocking add-ons from the Google Store.
- leeoniya 9y ago
  i'm concerned about this as well, but i'm fine letting Chrome function simply as a dev tool and actually browse with Firefox, Opera, Servo, etc. w/uBlock Origin & uMatrix
  - wbl 9y ago
    Firefox has some pretty nice dev tool extensions.
    - Mayzie 9y ago
      It won't for long when they deprecate their extension API and move to Chromes...
      - derefr 9y ago
        Presumably that won't mean that Firefox will only install extensions from the Chrome Web Store, though. addons.mozilla.org will continue to exist.
      - clouddrover 9y ago
        The dev tools are built into Firefox by default. So what do you base your claim on?

wmf 9y ago

Chrome already has its TLS version treadmill and a blacklist of evil sites, so this is not really the first step down that slope.

wheelerwj 9y ago
no but it is a huge step. using your platform to block competitors is the definition of anti-trust.
- clhodapp 9y ago
  Well... It's the sort of thing so-called anti-trust laws were designed to prevent but it's the definition of anti-competitive, not anti-trust.

abtinf 9y ago

Replace the word "ads" with "popups" in your comment and you would be making an argument for a return to a horrible era.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cm2187 9y ago
In fact this "ad blocker" is more of a popup and auto play blocker. It doesn't really mean to block ads. And worse than that, it does nothing to block or even reduce the tracking of users. In fact I haven't seen a single new feature in Chrome that would make tracking more difficult. Rather the contrary.
- flyingfences 9y ago
  > it does nothing to block or even reduce the tracking of users. In fact I haven't seen a single new feature in Chrome that would make tracking more difficult. Of course not. Google makes their money through ads; they wouldn't do anything that would hurt their money-making abilities.
inimino 9y ago
Popups and popunders were due to a browser feature (window.open) which was open to horrible abuse, and browsers were right to make this feature more restricted over time. Browsers fixing their own UI mistakes and browsers setting and enforcing rules for content are two entirely different things.