6 ms·

if (domain != 'adsense') { blockAd(); }

by ape4 9y ago

akhatri_aus 9y ago
Exactly my thoughts, this effectively puts a price premium on ads under any of Alphabet's networks.
marktangotango 9y ago
My thought as well, google/alphabet has a real PR problem here.
- vgeek 9y ago
  They won't discriminate against all 3rd parties at first, it would be too obvious. They will quietly grow the list of blocked 3rd parties, with the intention of gradually shifting all spend to AdSense/DoubleClick platforms.
  - anonymousab 9y ago
    Given how many bad sites and bad ads there are out there, I think the list would quickly grow even if Google had the best of intentions.
- Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
  And potentially an antitrust problem.
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    Does Facebook also have an antitrust problem? They're one of the many board members. https://www.betterads.org/members/ https://www.betterads.org/members/
kristianc 9y ago
More or less. It's Google's way of getting around header bidding.
fredley 9y ago
At least it makes using a third-party adblocker that much easier: if (domain == 'adsense') { blockAd(); }
alvil 9y ago
Yeah, adsense is the main reason. Then Google states you don't need other ad blocker and removes them all from Web store :)
d2wa 9y ago
Google uses EasyList and EasyPrivacy which includes AdSense, DoubleClick, Analytics, and other Google properties. Read the article.
- jasode 9y ago
  I read the article but it doesn't clarify whether or not Google will hardcode a "whitelist" that will ignore EasyList entries for AdSense, DoubleClick, GoogleAnalytics, etc. A comparable situation would be Windows 10 ignoring users' manually edited HOSTS file that attempts to block telemetry.[1] Microsoft has hardcoded hostname-to-ip resolution inside the networking stack (inside dnsapi.dll). If Google decides that Chrome will ignore some entries in EasyList, it means EasyList is more of a "suggestions" filter rather than a "user's final authority" filter. [1] https://www.petri.com/windows-10-ignoring-hosts-file-specific-name-resolution https://www.petri.com/windows-10-ignoring-hosts-file-specifi...
  - dictum 9y ago
    > A comparable situation would be Windows 10 ignoring users manually edited HOSTS file that attempts to block telemetry.[1] Microsoft has hardcoded ip to DNS resolution inside the networking stack (inside dnsapi.dll). It's funny how Microsoft under Satya Nadella is heralded for opening up (embracing[0] open source, open standards, recognizing other platforms). [0] I only noticed the irony a few seconds after writing that.
  - d2wa 9y ago
    It does say in the article that AdSense and Analytics is on the blocklist.
    - jasode 9y ago
      That article's sentence that you're pointing to does not explicitly address the specific whitelist scenario I laid out. The article's sentence: "Google appears to be shipping the entirety of EasyList and EasyPrivacy; which includes blocking rules for Google’s own AdSense and DoubleClick advertisement platforms as well as Google Analytics," ... is only talking about the existence of AdSense on EasyList -- because the entirety of EasyList entries is shipped. It does not talk about (or even speculate) whether Chrome will have a programming code that implements a whitelist to ignore certain entries. Those are 2 different concepts.
dannycastonguay 9y ago
"Google Chrome web browser will block every ad on websites that are not compliant with the Better Ads Standards [...] created by [...] companies like Microsoft and Google.". "The standards ban ad formats like auto-playing video ads, large ads that stick to the screen when you scroll, and interstitial ads". Doesn't seem like such a bad move.
- OskarS 9y ago
  I agree. It seems like adblockers and intrusive and unethical advertising are creating almost a negative feedback loop on the internet: the more intrusive and annoying the ads, the more people use adblockers, and the more people use adblockers, the more intrusive and annoying the ads become, because they have to make up the revenue. The only ones in a position to break this cycle is the browsers, and I welcome any attempt to try and create a more healthy environment for ads to exist in. It would be a great service for both users and the industry.
  - kbwt 9y ago
    > because they have to make up the revenue. I see this all the time when justifying bad business practices. How about you stop doing what you're doing if it isn't profitable?
    - rmrfrmrf 9y ago
      YAGNI
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    Funny that newspapers compromised by putting all the ads in a separate section. So serious shoppers could read that part when they wanted to, without ruining the paper for everybody. I of course just throw that section in the trash on my way out of the bodega.

if (domain != 'adsense') { blockAd(); }

by ape4 9y ago

if (domain != 'adsense') { blockAd(); }

akhatri_aus 9y ago

Exactly my thoughts, this effectively puts a price premium on ads under any of Alphabet's networks.

marktangotango 9y ago

My thought as well, google/alphabet has a real PR problem here.

vgeek 9y ago
They won't discriminate against all 3rd parties at first, it would be too obvious. They will quietly grow the list of blocked 3rd parties, with the intention of gradually shifting all spend to AdSense/DoubleClick platforms.
- anonymousab 9y ago
  Given how many bad sites and bad ads there are out there, I think the list would quickly grow even if Google had the best of intentions.
Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
And potentially an antitrust problem.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  Does Facebook also have an antitrust problem? They're one of the many board members. https://www.betterads.org/members/ https://www.betterads.org/members/

kristianc 9y ago

More or less. It's Google's way of getting around header bidding.

fredley 9y ago

At least it makes using a third-party adblocker that much easier: if (domain == 'adsense') { blockAd(); }

alvil 9y ago

Yeah, adsense is the main reason. Then Google states you don't need other ad blocker and removes them all from Web store :)

d2wa 9y ago

Google uses EasyList and EasyPrivacy which includes AdSense, DoubleClick, Analytics, and other Google properties. Read the article.

jasode 9y ago
I read the article but it doesn't clarify whether or not Google will hardcode a "whitelist" that will ignore EasyList entries for AdSense, DoubleClick, GoogleAnalytics, etc. A comparable situation would be Windows 10 ignoring users' manually edited HOSTS file that attempts to block telemetry.[1] Microsoft has hardcoded hostname-to-ip resolution inside the networking stack (inside dnsapi.dll). If Google decides that Chrome will ignore some entries in EasyList, it means EasyList is more of a "suggestions" filter rather than a "user's final authority" filter. [1] https://www.petri.com/windows-10-ignoring-hosts-file-specific-name-resolution https://www.petri.com/windows-10-ignoring-hosts-file-specifi...
- dictum 9y ago
  > A comparable situation would be Windows 10 ignoring users manually edited HOSTS file that attempts to block telemetry.[1] Microsoft has hardcoded ip to DNS resolution inside the networking stack (inside dnsapi.dll). It's funny how Microsoft under Satya Nadella is heralded for opening up (embracing[0] open source, open standards, recognizing other platforms). [0] I only noticed the irony a few seconds after writing that.
- d2wa 9y ago
  It does say in the article that AdSense and Analytics is on the blocklist.
  - jasode 9y ago
    That article's sentence that you're pointing to does not explicitly address the specific whitelist scenario I laid out. The article's sentence: "Google appears to be shipping the entirety of EasyList and EasyPrivacy; which includes blocking rules for Google’s own AdSense and DoubleClick advertisement platforms as well as Google Analytics," ... is only talking about the existence of AdSense on EasyList -- because the entirety of EasyList entries is shipped. It does not talk about (or even speculate) whether Chrome will have a programming code that implements a whitelist to ignore certain entries. Those are 2 different concepts.

dannycastonguay 9y ago

"Google Chrome web browser will block every ad on websites that are not compliant with the Better Ads Standards [...] created by [...] companies like Microsoft and Google.". "The standards ban ad formats like auto-playing video ads, large ads that stick to the screen when you scroll, and interstitial ads". Doesn't seem like such a bad move.

OskarS 9y ago
I agree. It seems like adblockers and intrusive and unethical advertising are creating almost a negative feedback loop on the internet: the more intrusive and annoying the ads, the more people use adblockers, and the more people use adblockers, the more intrusive and annoying the ads become, because they have to make up the revenue. The only ones in a position to break this cycle is the browsers, and I welcome any attempt to try and create a more healthy environment for ads to exist in. It would be a great service for both users and the industry.
- kbwt 9y ago
  > because they have to make up the revenue. I see this all the time when justifying bad business practices. How about you stop doing what you're doing if it isn't profitable?
  - rmrfrmrf 9y ago
    YAGNI
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Funny that newspapers compromised by putting all the ads in a separate section. So serious shoppers could read that part when they wanted to, without ruining the paper for everybody. I of course just throw that section in the trash on my way out of the bodega.