8 ms·

Well, to be fair, it seemed to me from the release announcement that they were blocking ads on webpages where the publisher set their pages up for a frustrating

by nyc640 9y ago

Well, to be fair, it seemed to me from the release announcement that they were blocking ads on webpages where the publisher set their pages up for a frustrating experience (pop-up display ads, auto play video ads), irrelevant of which ad systems were serving the ads on the pages. They aren't blocking ads from certain ad systems or advertisers. In theory this means the ad blocker shouldn't treat any ad system, including Google's, preferentially. In practice, who knows?

DiabloD3 9y ago
Someone is going to make that argument however: Google Ads disallows displaying their ads that way, and is extremely good at finding websites that do that, and not only banning them but keeping any potentially earned money as well. EU has already tried to make similar arguments to "break up Google" (lol, it's an American company, glwt) by basically blaming them for having a fair ToS and enforces it like no tommorow, thus producing services that attracts users. Thus, having an ad service that bans shitty publishers and advertisers both makes publishers and advertisers (sometimes exclusively) do business with Google. So, Google making Chrome ban shitty publishers and ad networks that harbor shitty publishers and advertisers ... makes Google look like they're not attacking themselves: which, well, they aren't, because they simply don't engage in that behavior on their ad network. There's probably a shorter way of explaining this.
- nyc640 9y ago
  This makes sense. Thanks for explaining. I don't really know the ads ecosystem that well, so those were just my inferences from the blog post. I'm sure that was the intention of the post :-)
tyingq 9y ago
Who's to say, though, that the ads Chrome is going to block are any more frustrating than Google ads? The ads on YouTube are extremely frustrating. And, the ads on a search results page aren't exactly frustrating, but they do seem very deliberately designed to not look like ads.

by nyc640 9y ago

DiabloD3 9y ago

Someone is going to make that argument however: Google Ads disallows displaying their ads that way, and is extremely good at finding websites that do that, and not only banning them but keeping any potentially earned money as well. EU has already tried to make similar arguments to "break up Google" (lol, it's an American company, glwt) by basically blaming them for having a fair ToS and enforces it like no tommorow, thus producing services that attracts users. Thus, having an ad service that bans shitty publishers and advertisers both makes publishers and advertisers (sometimes exclusively) do business with Google. So, Google making Chrome ban shitty publishers and ad networks that harbor shitty publishers and advertisers ... makes Google look like they're not attacking themselves: which, well, they aren't, because they simply don't engage in that behavior on their ad network. There's probably a shorter way of explaining this.

nyc640 9y ago
This makes sense. Thanks for explaining. I don't really know the ads ecosystem that well, so those were just my inferences from the blog post. I'm sure that was the intention of the post :-)

tyingq 9y ago

Who's to say, though, that the ads Chrome is going to block are any more frustrating than Google ads? The ads on YouTube are extremely frustrating. And, the ads on a search results page aren't exactly frustrating, but they do seem very deliberately designed to not look like ads.