5 ms·

It 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 excus

It 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 ago
  They want to be the sole ad provider, is what that means
  - visarga 9y ago
    All of the sudden Mozilla is more relevant.
- manigandham 9y ago
  Block competitors ad networks/formats while leaving their own...
- rootlocus 9y ago
  From 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 ago
The 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/
- nailer 9y ago
  I understand this, and believe it's true, but: gmail mobile has a full page ad asking you to download the app. I'll be surprised if Google block it.
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    There's a difference between a site willfully destroying UX on mobile versus including a third party's paid content. Reddit mobile also has a full page ad asking you to download the app. I also doubt Google would block that. Nothing to do with it being "Google".
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      I personally don't see a difference. They are putting a notice up that is trying to entice me to "buy" something. Why does it matter if it's from a 3rd party or not?
- kodablah 9y ago
  Depends on how you define discretionary here. I say it's discretionary if a human chooses instead of a computer with clearly defined constraints. So if it's not discretionary, can you tell me what the specific rules are for determining something is an ad as opposed to some other kind of image?
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
  Which of course raises the question - if they have the technology to detect these ads, why allow them on their network in the first place?

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 ago
They want to be the sole ad provider, is what that means
- visarga 9y ago
  All of the sudden Mozilla is more relevant.
manigandham 9y ago
Block competitors ad networks/formats while leaving their own...
rootlocus 9y ago
From 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 ago

The 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/

nailer 9y ago
I understand this, and believe it's true, but: gmail mobile has a full page ad asking you to download the app. I'll be surprised if Google block it.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  There's a difference between a site willfully destroying UX on mobile versus including a third party's paid content. Reddit mobile also has a full page ad asking you to download the app. I also doubt Google would block that. Nothing to do with it being "Google".
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    I personally don't see a difference. They are putting a notice up that is trying to entice me to "buy" something. Why does it matter if it's from a 3rd party or not?
kodablah 9y ago
Depends on how you define discretionary here. I say it's discretionary if a human chooses instead of a computer with clearly defined constraints. So if it's not discretionary, can you tell me what the specific rules are for determining something is an ad as opposed to some other kind of image?
SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
Which of course raises the question - if they have the technology to detect these ads, why allow them on their network in the first place?