9 ms·
Google’s native ad blocker for Chrome shows up in Android developer build
- guelo 9y agoI was an Android user for many years but what drove me away was the inability to set a system-level adblocker without rooting. The cherry on top was the inability to turn off the unique advertising tracking ID provided by the system. When I found myself setting up a weekly reminder to manually reset the ad tracking ID I realized I was never going to win the fight over control of my own device and I switched. I don't know what advanced level jiu-jitsu the evil Google product managers are trying to pull off with this adblocker but I am glad I don't have to worry about it anymore. Though I am sad I lost what I once thought was a great champion for users.
- bert_ 9y agoWhat did you switch to?
- BHSPitMonkey 9y agoWhat did you switch to that offers those things, and how was it easier than either rooting stock Android or switching to a FOSS Android distro?
- josteink 9y agoMaybe he just ditched the idea of the smartphone all together. I know some people who have.
- danieldk 9y agohttps://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/General/Conceptual/ExtensibilityPG/ContentBlocker.html https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Ge... It is not system-wide, but does extend to Safari View Controllers. I never encountered an ad on my iPhone since I installed a Safari ad blocker (I don't use any ad-supported free games/applications).
- vxNsr 9y agoI've found that it doesn't work on SVC. Meaning when I open a link in say twitter ads will still show up but if I open it in safari ads are gone.
- Rotareti 9y agoI wish I could install a proper FOS OS on my phone with a proper FOS package manager that allows me to install FOSS. I would get myself two phones. The main one using FOSS exclusively. The other dedicated to the people who refuse to ditch WhatsApp for Signal.
- therealidiot 9y agoDoes Signal still require Google Play Services?
- mrhigat4 9y agoIf you have Google Play Services installed, it will try to use it. If you don't, you can install the apk from here https://signal.org/android/apk/ https://signal.org/android/apk/ which should auto update. Their permissions list is still kind of whack and everyone else on android except you is going to have Google in between every message so...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bitmapbrother 9y agoDo you also reset your Advertising Identifier on the iPhone on a weekly basis?
- danieldk 9y agoWhen you enable Limit Ad Tracking, your advertising identifier is set to null for third party apps. It is automatically reset to a new random identifier when you disable Limit Ad Tracking. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223
- 482794793792894 9y ago> I don't know what advanced level jiu-jitsu the evil Google product managers are trying to pull off with this adblocker but I am glad I don't have to worry about it anymore. There's two (not mutually exclusive) theories: 1: By shipping an adblocker themselves, the number of people who will install a third-party adblocker will dwindle, leading to less development of those and we might eventually end up with the only adblocker being Google-controlled, allowing them to slowly increase the number of ads seeping through without anyone being pissed off enough to write a proper adblocker. They might even block other adblockers from the Chrome Store on the basis of them being unneeded now and clearly just security risks. 2: Their adblocker blocks ads by completely arbitrary criteria. "Intrusive ads", as Google calls it. But obviously, these criteria are cut out to mostly block ads from other ad networks. For example, Google unsurprisingly doesn't think that user tracking is intrusive. Also, there's markets that Google can't compete in. Porn & piracy sites, for example. It's commonplace to have visually intrusive (and less broadly privacy intrusive) ads there. Google just doesn't have such ads in their catalogue and it would damage their reputation, if they did. So, by blocking those visually intrusive ads, there's a much higher chance of their ads being used there instead.
- avaer 9y agoI think it's about controlling the conversation. Ad blockers are trickling down to mainstream adoption, and this is an existential threat to Google. The best way to counter that is to redefine "ad blocker" to mean "Google ad server (Chrome)". Google can't win this fight by telling people to not use ad blockers. They can win this fight by making sure that when you offer to benefit your aunt by installing a real ad-blocker, she responds "that's ok, I hear Chrome already has an ad blocker". And of course, Google has all of the data needed to keep an eye on public opinion and how well this strategy is working.
- ballenf 9y agoGoogle's rumored criteria is all about the look and behavior of the ad with no consideration for data privacy implications. Apple's taking the true consumer friendly approach and blocking based on prevalence across multiple sites. Google's approach arguably makes people less likely to install a tool that blocks data hoovering.
- whoami_nr 9y agoWhat is your new setup and how do you ensure system level ad blocking ? I personally use a combination of Privoxy and pihole and I just point my router to it. All the clients on my local network don't get ads on any of their apps/websites.
- dingo_bat 9y agoOn Samsung phones you can install several system-wide root-less adblockers, an example: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.getadhell.androidapp https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.getadhell.... You can also install extensions for Samsung Internet, again without root: https://play.google.com/store/search?q=adblock%20for%20samsung%20internet https://play.google.com/store/search?q=adblock%20for%20samsu...
- saimiam 9y ago> system level adblocking I invite you to try my network level Adblock @ https://Datajoy.us https://Datajoy.us. Block ads for all devices on your wifi with one DNS change. We launched early July and the response so far has been encouraging that such an Adblock is needed.
- dschep 9y agoDNS66[0] is a decent way to block ads system-wide on android. Free, OSS & doesn't need root. [0] https://f-droid.org/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/ https://f-droid.org/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/
- samfisher83 9y agoI wonder what this means: “Block ads from sites that tend to show intrusive ads,” So google ads don't get blocked? How is this any different than what ABP does. Anyways qualcomm makes a browser a that blocks ads. They have been doing it for a few years. Here is my compiled version: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rsbrowser.browser https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rsbrowser.... I am sure there are other versions too.
- BHSPitMonkey 9y agoFYI, on first run your browser asks me to agree to a TOS and Privacy Statement, both of which are blank pages.
- KevanM 9y agoIf you go to the Radio Times website there's an ad that pops up several browser windows - and loses the page you were looking at AND triggers the phone vibrate. That's intrusive.
- on_and_off 9y agopop over, pop under, full screen interstitials, those are ads that go too far and I would like to see removed. Basically anything that messes up with basic navigation goes too far for me. For other ads, I think it is fair to monetize your site so I don't want those blocked.
- mortehu 9y agoYou can find the Better Ads Standard's "Least preferred ad experiences" here: https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/
- tinalumfoil 9y agoIf I'm reading this correctly "autoplaying video ads with sound" means they don't consider YouTube ads acceptable.
- 9y ago
- dgranda 9y agoIf you are not an extensive user of plugins, another option to block ads and tracking when browsing the Internet is Brave [1] [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.brave.browser https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.brave.brow...
- paule89 9y agoWell i tried it and it failed. Have to this day see any really blocked ads. The often very intrusive ones still get through.
- johnnydoe9 9y agoI'm sure there will be millions of people who wouldn't know how to disable the inbuilt ad block, it would be interesting to see change in sites that don't work unless you pause the adblock.
- ucho 9y agoEven more interesting will be the effect on sites that can't get "good" ads due to adult content or sketchy legality like file sharing sites.
- aorth 9y agoLooking forward to seeing this mature and be tested by the community. For what it's worth, Samsung Internet is now available on non-Samsung phones and supports content blocking plugins (like Disconnect, AdBlock Fast, etc). It's incredibly smooth and polished as well, making it a great replacement for Chrome on Android as long as you don't need the Google account sync features. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sec.android.app.sbrowser https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sec.androi...
- egorpe 9y agoSo, Google is going to block their competitors' ads and keep showing their own?
- josteink 9y agoDid you honestly expect anything else?
- 482794793792894 9y agoYeah, the first lawsuits are already warming up, but that might take years still. Plenty time for any competition to die off and then Google pays some one-time fee and gets to keep the monopoly.
- saurik 9y agoAny realistic attempt at a lawsuit here would start with a request for injunction to force Google to temporarily remove this feature.
- IshKebab 9y agoTo be fair if all ads were as unobtrusive as Google's we wouldn't have a problem. I think the fundamental issue is that Google's ads are more valuable (because they can target them really well - they literally know what you are looking for), so they don't need to be as obtrusive. If you just visit a random news site they don't really know what ads to show you (which I guess is why they are more like TV ads - for cars, perfume, etc.) and those adverts are far more speculative and worth less, so they need to be much more obtrusive to earn the same money.
- huhtenberg 9y ago> ... as unobtrusive as Google's we wouldn't have a problem. I don't seem to understand which "problem" you are referring to exactly?
- sk0g 9y ago
- breakingcups 9y agoI switched from Chrome to Firefox on Android because Firefox supports any extension you want on mobile, where Chrome doesn't support any extensions on mobile. uBlock Origin alone has made that switch worth it. No ads in Google results either.
- tdeck 9y agoYou can also use Brave, which is based on the Chrome codebase so scrolling and rendering are smoother. I love Firefox but I just couldn't hack it on mobile.
- NTripleOne 9y agoYeah, firefox has been a pretty abysmal experience for me on android, it's slow, scrolling is janky, it crashes almost every time I try to use it... it's just been a bad experience all around.
- nindalf 9y agoI've used Firefox for the last 2 years on Android. In that time I've only had a couple of websites not work, probably because the Dev only tested with one browser. I've enjoyed browsing ad free and a couple of other features that Chrome didn't have at the time, like open tabs in the background when I click on links in other apps. If you're willing to give Firefox another chance, it's a good time to do so. They've put a lot of effort into performance in the last few releases.
- majewsky 9y agoI'm also a regular Firefox-on-Android user, and the only thing I would criticize is that sometimes layouting of large sites gets the browser stuck for a few seconds (e.g. long HN threads with 100+ replies). I hope that gets better though when Stylo is enabled by default in a few versions.
- pieter_mj 9y agoenabling protection from tracking and fingerprinting also speeds up browsing. kill 2 birds with one stone. as mentioned elsewhere in the comments, it's a good idea to set up the default browser in android to use the maximum of privacy and security settings together with the uBlock Origin addin. these urls provide some good starting points : https://www.linuxfestnorthwest.org/2017/sessions/security-and-privacy-settings-firefox-power-users https://www.linuxfestnorthwest.org/2017/sessions/security-an... https://www.privacy-handbuch.de/handbuch_21.htm https://www.privacy-handbuch.de/handbuch_21.htm the 2nd url is in german but it has great tips (spurenarm surfen = surf without leaving traces)
- chaz6 9y agoI would no more trust a Google ad blocker than I would trust a thief to fit my locks.
- mejin 9y agoI wonder if YouTube video ads count as "intrusive ads". Because YouTube was the tipping point that made me decide to install ublock origin. I also download Firefox for Android because I don't want my data to be eaten up by video ads when I'm browsing videos.
- aedron 9y agoI generally dislike web ads, but I don't really mind YouTube. The ad plays, then goes away. You can even skip it after a few seconds. As far as ads go I think it's a very reasonable implementation.
- chungy 9y agoIt's really dependent on video. Some videos can be 20 minutes long and you have a skippable ad in the beginning only. Other videos are only ~6 minutes long and play an unskippable ad every 45 seconds. It probably depends on monetization settings with the channel holder, but it's really annoying. The former kind, I don't mind, but the latter is almost as bad as cable TV.
- NTripleOne 9y agoMaybe it's a little different depending on your creator status, who you're partnered with, etc - but from my experience of monetising videos, there is very little control over the ads, for example, here's what I see when I choose to monetise a video. http://i.imgur.com/wTbpa8a.png http://i.imgur.com/wTbpa8a.png Excuse the dark theme, it makes the checks a little hard to see.
- hamax 9y ago> Other videos are only ~6 minutes long and play an unskippable ad every 45 seconds. Can you please give an example. I've never seen anything even close to this.
- rdslw 9y agoIn other news: thieves declaring to provide monitoring solutions recording they work.
- dis-sys 9y agoUsing ad blocker from the biggest ad company is like asking a drug dealer to help fighting ones drug addition.
- huhtenberg 9y agoSuch a farce.
- a_imho 9y agoCalling it an adblocker is pretty dishonest when it's main purpose is to enforce Coalition for Better Ads standards. It is not an alternative to wide spectrum 3rd party content blockers at all for people who care about a clean browsing experience. It could block competitor ads, assuming it will be default enabled later when it hits general availability and the majority of Chrome users do not care about tweaking their settings.
- tyingq 9y agoGoogle is said to be providing publisher partners with guidelines about what qualifies as “intrusive ads,” ...These include...so-called “prestitial ads” that prevent content from being shown, often tied to a countdown timer. That sounds a lot like what YouTube puts in the front of videos. Somehow I doubt they will be blocked.
- omgmog 9y agoSwitching to Firefox Focus [1] is probably a better solution -- it's Webkit/Blink under the hood, but blocks ads/trackers and doesn't maintain a browser history. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/focus/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/focus/
- moosingin3space 9y agoFrom my look at the Focus source, it's not Webkit/Blink on Android.
- mp3geek 9y agoIs there a list we can see/review that Chrome uses?
- lazarus101 9y agoLet me guess, all ads that are not from Google will be considered 'intrusive' by Chrome.
- vxNsr 9y agoLooks like they took a page out of Microsoft's 90s EEE playbook. If they can get things to go as planned, in 2 years ublock will be removed from the chrome store because it's "unnecessary" and before long we'll be served the same ads as now only with no way to clock them in chrome. I've downloaded Firefox on my phone and computer and will now be migrating over.
- yuhong 9y agoI am beginning to think that the current ad bubble is probably fundamentally flawed and somewhat similar to the dot-com bubble. I said before that printing money using basic income would only inflate it. Ads are designed to increase consumption, and we have a debt-based economy.