14 ms·
Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15
- evolighting 9y agoSo, Your only ad choice will be Goolge! Since another ad provider (?) may be "annoying or intrusive"; Yes I`m just kidding, But google is far too POWERFUL anyway.
- jicks 9y agoNo, they'll only block ads that don't follow the guidelines defined by the Coalition for Better Ads [0] (Google is a member, but there is a lot of other members, like Facebook, ...). Note that this may include ads provided by Google. [0] : https://www.betterads.org/ https://www.betterads.org/
- jessaustin 9y agoIt is either naive or cynical to insist that a giant unaccountable organization will or won't do anything in particular with respect to its core business.
- raguuu 9y agoWhy are there so many people shilling for Google with this "coalition"?
- krelian 9y agoThis should be great on mobile. On mobile there are no extensions and there are at least two news sites I frequent that abuse it by showing a full page popup before every article.
- Kurtz79 9y agoThat's the reason why I don't use Chrome on mobile (Android). There are plenty of valid alternatives, Brave is one of them.
- bmurphy1976 9y agoBrave is great. If you go into settings and disable javascript by default, you can easily use the Brave button to whitelist javascript on a site-by-site basis. I cannot browse the web anymore with javascript enabled by default, it's such a terrible experience. I don't know how others can tolerate the state of things.
- jasonkostempski 9y agoUse a better mobile browser and/or OS, you'll never go back.
- siddharthdeswal 9y agoFirefox Focus is good too.
- asfdsfggtfd 9y agoHave you tried Firefox? Ublock works fine for Firefox on Android.
- johnthomas00 9y agoI've been using http://blokada.org/ http://blokada.org/ on NON-root Android with good results for all apps, not just the browser. It is just a proxy that blocks domains in the customizable blacklists. The only downsides I've seen are 1) I have to whitelist apps the need to detect if they are on mobile or wifi otherwise they cannot tell, and 2) you cannot chain/use another proxy too.
- bartkmq 9y agoHave you tried using DNS66 as adblocker? It's implemented as local-running VPN and doesn't require root. I'm using it since a year or so and quite happy with it. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.jak_linux.dns66/ https://github.com/julian-klode/dns66 https://github.com/julian-klode/dns66
- _rpd 9y agoAdblock Plus works for Safari on iOS.
- majewsky 9y ago> On mobile there are no extensions uBlock Origin is available on Firefox for Android, and works like a charm.
- Fnoord 9y agoProblem isn't browser on Android. You can install another like many others already said (I use Firefox + uBlock). The problem is that apps use Webview to embed. So you're going to need to use another option to block ads on Android in general: 1) Use DNS66 as another user said. Doesn't require root. (Does make a local VPN, so removes option to use a VPN.) 2) Use Pi-Hole on a Pi at home and make a VPN to it. Bonus: you get access to your home network (if you config it as such) and are secure over open WiFi and hostile 4G. Doesn't require root. 3) You can root your phone and use /etc/hosts or IPT 4) Firefox 58 will allow you to run tabs as "apps" which are pinned in the OS. If that takes off, that's going to result in a massive dent in paid apps from Google Play as well as ad revenue from Android. As for this action by Google, its a charming move. Remember that time when Google was just new, and was only text ads on Google search engine?
- Spivak 9y agoSome apps might use a WebView but any app that's using custom tabs ('Chrome tabs') can take advantage of the browser ad blocking. For Firefox all you have to do is turn it on in Firefox and make it your default browser. You can already do 4 with sites that support being a PWAs and it's pretty good.
- Fnoord 9y agoAFAIK most apps use WebView. I use Firefox as default browser (even disabled Chrome, not using it), and still see ads (that is w/o any of the other methods mentioned). PWA was part of Firefox 58 AFAIK, so you either need Firefox Beta or wait till January.
- ashleyn 9y agoThe worst on mobile is the fake virus ads. There's a script, it's the same one they all use, which out of nowhere will change the URL to some site that spams you with messages saying "Your Android has a Virus!". Every single time it happens, I need to force close the browser. This stuff has to stop.
- thisisit 9y agoIt seems the criteria for blocking is rather discretionary. Are they going to block a site which has annoying Google ads? Frankly this seems to be another excuse to build a walled garden to try and serve their interests.
- scrollaway 9y ago> Frankly this seems to be another excuse to build a walled garden ??? How do you make the leap there? Adblocking = walled garden? Are you just picking a random buzzword? Edit: Do the people replying to me understand the meaning of a "walled garden"?
- gaius 9y agoThey want to be the sole ad provider, is what that means
- visarga 9y agoAll of the sudden Mozilla is more relevant.
- manigandham 9y agoBlock competitors ad networks/formats while leaving their own...
- rootlocus 9y agoFrom wikipedia: > A closed platform, walled garden or closed ecosystem[1][2] is a software system where the carrier or service provider has control over applications, content, and media, and restricts convenient access to non-approved applications or content. Surely you can see how google having control over which ads get through and which don't fits this definition.
- jicks 9y agoThe criteria is not discretionary. They'll block ads that don't follow the guidelines defined by the Coalition for Better Ads [0] (Google is a member, but there is a lot of other members, like Facebook, ...). So yes, they'll block a site which has non-conforming Google ads. [0] : https://www.betterads.org/ https://www.betterads.org/
- gumby 9y ago"Intrusive"? I assume they mean visually or auditory. Presumably intrusive tracking, web bugs and the like will be fair game.
- jasonkostempski 9y agoYeah, it's time to start calling proper ad-blockers, "tracking blockers". It sounds more like something you need, like anti-virus, and also sounds like something that's "fair" to use if you have moral concerns about ad blocking.
- rypskar 9y agoI use ghostery to block tracking, no ad-blocker. But since almost all ads track users almost all ads are blocked. If anyone want to show me ads they will have to show ads without tracking that try to find which ads will be least interesting for me
- jasonkostempski 9y agoThis is exactly what I want to happen. I recently saw an ad on some page and was concerned uBlock Origin had missed something. I was happy to discover it was just a self-hosted JPEG wrapped in an anchor tag to a legit affiliate site.
- bionoid 9y agoI recently discovered that Ghostery was purchased by Cliqz [0], which is a company partially owned by Mozilla. They offer a free privacy-oriented browser "Cliqz" which is described on Wikipedia as: "Cliqz plans to eventually monetize the software through a program known as Cliqz Offers, which will deliver sponsored offers to users based on their interests and browsing history. However, these recommendations will be processed locally based on a remote repository of offers, with no personally identifiable data sent to remote servers." [1] I haven't looked further into it, but it makes me feel like I should contribute to a browser project... [0] https://www.ghostery.com/blog/ghostery-news/ghostery-acquired-cliqz/ https://www.ghostery.com/blog/ghostery-news/ghostery-acquire... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliqz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliqz
- ourmandave 9y agoLong as I can keep using uBlock Origin and disable theirs it's fine with me.
- fortythirteen 9y agoStill doesn't make it ok, from an anti-competitive standpoint. "As long as I can download Netscape, having IE pre-installed is fine with me."
- yummy 9y agoIt's better than having no browser at all... But what's the competition? Is uBlock gonna sue Google? No. Or adblock with a single developer? (Don't know if it's still true)... Well, no. Let's see how it's done. Most consumers will probably benefit from it.
- rootlocus 9y agoThe competition isn't other ad blockers. It's other advertisers, which google could choose to block.
- user5994461 9y agoHaving IE pre installed is a necessary. How do you use the internet with nothing installed? What's next? We're going to force shipping cars without wheels. It's unfair to decide what brand people should use without their consent.
- visarga 9y ago> Having IE pre installed is a necessary. How do you the internet with nothing installed? Evidently, you can use a CD or 100 floppy disks. But not necessary because IE is the best tool in the world for installing Chrome and Mozilla.
- vanadium 9y agoYou might remember this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/eu-fines-microsoft-e561-million-for-not-giving-users-a-browser-choice/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/eu-fines-microso... Of course, that ended not too long ago. While having IE was necessary to hit the web, it immediately presented the choices available.
- fatwa 9y agoHow will this work? Algorithm-based? Blacklist? Smells like useless cat and mouse to me
- _rpd 9y agoAd blocking will always be an arms race. But even small imposed expenses on advertisers seems to eliminate most ads.
- Artlav 9y agoI bet it won't block all the damn "download our shitty app instead of using the fully functional website we have" full screen popups...
- 9point6 9y agoIsn't there a Google PageRank penalty for sites that do that now?
- deno 9y agoThere’s a dedicated API now… https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/app-install-banners/#native_app_install_banners https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/app-install-b... It uses some heuristics: > Be visited by the user twice, over two separate days during the course of two weeks. I think apps installed this way should be also limited to some subset of permissions they can request[1]. Otherwise this is almost like a bookmarking mechanism. [1] They could still explicitly ask for more, on use.
- earenndil 9y agoGoogle's own site doesn't do this! I haven't visited google sheets on my phone in quite a while (ever?), but when I go to sheets.google.com, I get an ad for the google sheets app, and it's in no way clear that it's possible to use a web interface. Same for google docs.
- yoran 9y agoLooking at you Reddit...
- Havoc 9y agoJust when we got everything somewhat standardized to use the same application (browser) for all content this stupid separate app for every content producer culture explodes. Seems like three steps back
- wst_ 9y agoI still find it amusing that they consider auto-play video OK as long as it's muted. Sound is the problem, but so is auto-playing itself.
- Artlav 9y agoThey are all probably too rich to understand the concept of paying for mobile data.
- mtgx 9y agoThis way they can charge advertisers for a lot of fake "video engagement".
- docdeek 9y agoIt depends on where you are, I guess. I pay for data on my cell in France but the amount of data I am allowed each month before things start to slow down (100GB, up from 50GB a few months ago) means I never get close to getting throttled by auto-playing videos.
- 0xFFC 9y agoHow much do you pay for that plan?
- jicks 9y agoIt's usually around 20€/month for that kind of plan in France (with unlimited calls and SMS).
- monsieurbanana 9y ago20 euros per month with "Free" (that's the name of the company) ISP. "Free" has his share of problems, notably many people complain that the quality of their connection is strenuous at best, some people don't. It's a bit of gamble with them. What can't be denied is that in France there was a before-Free and an after-Free. They introduced 20gb for 20E/month when everybody else was at 5gb for 50E/month (not the exact amounts, but it was that ballpark). The result is that the other ISP had to align themselves with Free, and now you have a lot of other similar offers to choose from. Yay Free.
- fortythirteen 9y agoHow is this not anti-competitive behavior? If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the same thing?!
- fredley 9y agoIt probably is, but (as with MS and IE), by the time the courts finally give a verdict on the matter it will be too late for everyone else.
- 0xFFC 9y agoIn HN community: Because people in HN do have double standards when it comes to Microsoft vs Google.
- mattjsmith 9y agoMicrosoft wanted you to buy their software. Google gives it away for free. That's the only thing I've come up with that explains the enduring romance.
- wef23f 9y agoHaving a monopoly and abusing it are two different things. MS was in a position to abuse it because no one could switch to OSX or Linux without huge expense; hard to run win32 apps. Google is waaaay different. Alternatives that work just as well exist, and they exist for the same "free as in beer" to users as numerous alternatives. Are we to punish Google because people aren't switching from their from their products to alternatives?
- musage 9y agoIt's not "free", they give it away to sell ads. With Microsoft, before the constant update stuff, you could at least say you buy version X of product Y and then you have that, like some tool in a tool shed. Now that's a shifting mess of attached strings, too, but Google was never anything but that.
- mtgx 9y agoI wonder if this will be enabled on Chrome for mobile, too. Since Chrome doesn't have extensions, and therefore ublock origin, on mobile, Google has little incentive to enable it there. I assume they will enable it there, too, but you never know.
- Sylos 9y agoPresumably, their ad blocker will primarily block other ad networks' ads, so then it would be a netgain for them to enable it on mobile, too.
- circa 9y agoWill they make them go away with this one weird trick?
- chappi42 9y agoCorrect title should read 'native ad-filtering'. (remark directed towards techcrunch - blocking would e.g. be uBlock Origin)
- jonbarker 9y agoI wonder if Google will allow ads.txt to specify how annoying the ads can be https://iabtechlab.com/ads-txt/ https://iabtechlab.com/ads-txt/
- rdsubhas 9y agoWill it be using static whitelist files (and will they be updated separately, or as part of the browser update)? Because the last thing (in addition to non-competitive behavior and a host of other things) is to send all browsing traffic/history to google services to validate if its an ad or not.
- user5994461 9y agoAll the browser have lists of websites that are automatically updated periodically in the background. To give a non controversial example, there is a list of "phishing and malware domains". It's been going on for a very long time.
- kodablah 9y agoI don't think it's completely fair to compare "Safe Browsing Lists" to ad blocking. While I agree and don't like that Google is a gatekeeper of those, it's sparingly used in my experience. Lists like these would require much more maintenance and oversight. I suppose you could say it is similar in how the lists might be updated, which IIRC is via an "extension"-like updating mechanism via crx update files.
- l2dy 9y agoSource (Google): https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/12/better-ads https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/12/better-ads
- kodablah 9y agoThis made things much clearer. Thanks. But I have a ton of questions: * Where can I download the ad experience report? * So if I replace the ad using a different approach (DOM path, attrs, domain, etc) every 29 days, this isn't going to block anything? * Where is the code that does the blocking on Chromium so I can read it? Specifically, I want to see if it's client side or not. Can anyone shed any light here?
- syphilis2 9y agoAs someone who was already using ad block this might be bad for me. If everyone starts using ad block, and if intrusive ads are more profitable than the approved ads, then advertisers will be pressured to find better ways to subvert ad block. The good times of ad block might be in the past, and the arms race accelerating.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- yeukhon 9y agoSo does this prevent iframe hijack and pop-up types of annoying ads? They are the kinds I really really want to stop seeing. Unfortunately uBlock can only block so many.
- Ajedi32 9y agoChrome 64 already blocks those by default: https://blog.chromium.org/2017/11/expanding-user-protections-on-web.html https://blog.chromium.org/2017/11/expanding-user-protections...
- boggio 9y agoOk, next move is to remove 3rd party Adblocking software from the Chrome Store. /s
- Spivak 9y agoHey, if they want to push users to Firefox I'm not going to complain.
- ksk 9y agoThey're going to block all the other ad blocking extensions from running on Chrome. Or cripple chromes API so they can't exist. Its only a matter of time.
- CASHforGOLD 9y agoHow does this affect ad buys for marketers? Interesting...
- tobyhinloopen 9y agoThats a bold move I don’t approve... My browser should not filter content by default by some rules defined by a company
- adangert 9y agoThe best way for Google to solve this problem, is to block all ads by default in chrome, remove ads on google.com, and charge users a yearly fee to click to the next page on any search result. Thus you have users paying real money to use google's full search feature. Everyone is happy.
- heptathorp 9y agoNow if only we had native-ad blocking.
- tyingq 9y agoMy favorite bit is the ban on interstitials with a countdown timer. I hate those as much as anyone else, but.... Somehow the interstitials with countdown timers on videos, like YouTube, don't count...that's allowed. Are they any less annoying than a pop-up that blocks text content for a set period of time? Both force an ad on you before viewing the actual content. My worry is that this will shift many content providers from text to video. The web will turn into broadcast TV.
- gimmeminusnow4 9y agogoogle support ad-bloking ?? against they own advertisements ?? WHAT A JOKE!
- mezuzi 9y agoMany big channels show black screens with the sound on if you are using adblockplus, but who cares about such channels?!