4 ms·

> 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 abo

> 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 ago
I 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 ago
Google'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.
- baybal2 9y ago
  So far, the criteria looks to be no more than to be on a list of Eastern European ad vendors

avaer 9y ago

I 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 ago

Google'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.

baybal2 9y ago
So far, the criteria looks to be no more than to be on a list of Eastern European ad vendors