10 ms·

I think there's good intentions by Google here. That said, let's talk about the worst-case scenario, the thing that Google could actually do that is entirely an

by mabbo 9y ago

I think there's good intentions by Google here. That said, let's talk about the worst-case scenario, the thing that Google could actually do that is entirely anti-competitive. Step 1: Google finds a large number of competitors who are doing pretty well playing by their rules. Google finds some trait they all have in common. Google then modifies their own ads to not have that trait. Step 2: Google declares the given trait "not meeting the Better Ads standard", "clarifies" the standard (or their implementation of it), and blocks all their competitors ads. Their own ads of course are still meeting the new set of rules, as they knew the change was coming. If the Coalition for Better Ads disagrees or won't be bullied by the Goliath of advertising, Google will go form their own version of it claiming to be more strict, "for the sake of the users". Step 3: After a few weeks or months, the competition will modify their ads and eventually everything will be back to normal. That's when Google goes back to step 1. The final Step 4 is the opposite. Find a trait that none or few competitors have in their ads but would potentially increase click-through rates. Modify the rules to say that doing this thing is okay, and oh hey Google ads are doing that thing as of right now. Why all of this? Because Amazon is growing in the advertising business and is ruthless. "Your margin is my opportunity". So Google needs an arsenal of dirty tricks up their sleeve. Do I really believe this is the plan? No. I think Google are legit trying to meet a user need that exists. But I also know they're a publicly traded company with growing competition in a fierce industry. It's not what they plan to do that worries me, but what they can do when up against the wall.

drngdds 9y ago
I feel like there's a simpler explanation that's still not 'good intentions': 1. Lots of people are using adblockers to block all ads, including Google's, and they don't like that. 2. People mostly install adblockers to block really annoying ads.* 3. By building in an adblocker that blocks annoying ads, people will stop installing full adblockers that also block Google's ads. *There are real issues with non-annoying ads, like tracking, but I don't think most people know or care very much about that.
- dhimes 9y ago
  This is the explanation they give in the post.
- rahoulb 9y ago
  > There are real issues with non-annoying ads, like tracking, but I don't think most people know or care very much about that. I speak to a lot of people who find "retargeting" deeply creepy. The awareness of the problem is there. However, they don't understand what causes it, how it works or that it's even possible to stop it.
  - hinkley 9y ago
    Its also just bad salesmanship. There was an electronics store called CompUSA. I didn’t always shop there but I did buy Christmas presents there. Then one year they started using transparent shopping bags. Which means you can’t shop for anybody that is on the trip with you, or lives with you. It made it a hassle to keep a secret and I just gave up. So now if I am looking at jewelry for my partner, ads for the exact things I looked at will follow me around for the next several weeks. Dumber still, it will show me ads for an expensive item I already bought. Telegraphing my purchase history. If someone just bought a new TV, then showing then TV ads is pretty much the dumbest move you can make. The target is at an all time low for probability of purchasing that item. And worse, you risk triggering buyer’s remorse. Repeatedly. But this is Amazons engineering culture. Don’t reason about anything. Just try it and see. It’s amoral most of the time (but refusing to address ethics is itself immoral). They are basically a giant factory for throwing spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks. I think all they can do is get more parasitic until people say no.
    - ryanmerket 9y ago
      Wait. What does retargeting have to do with Amazon’s Engineering culture? Seems like a large leap in logic. Couldn’t it just as easily say “well, that’s Facebook’s caching layer not updating fast enough to remove finished campaigns?”
abandonliberty 9y ago
Google's intent is to protect their advertising revenue stream. That's not good or bad, it's just business. Definitely agree with you on the long term capability. There's just so much risk having your web interface owned by someone with a vested interest in what you see. In the meantime expect 3rd party attempts at gaming this functionality.
- Gracana 9y ago
  It's bad for anyone who doesn't want to be stalked by powerful corporations.
- switch007 9y ago
  > That's not good or bad, it's just business. I think I missed some nuance. Is doing business is beyond reproach these days?
  - throwaway2048 9y ago
    seems to be if you listen to some of the corporate appologists around HN, where if it isnt explicitly against the law, people have nothing to complain about (and often not even then..)
    - FridgeSeal 9y ago
      There are definitely some for whom the pursuit of profit justifies the means, regardless of how immoral (or morally grey) it is, and any relevant laws are there to be dodged (bonus points for writing said actions off as "being disruptive").
ballenf 9y ago
The worst part about all of this is the conflation of advertising with tracking. They are very different beasts. Google "protects" us from visibly annoying ads while ignoring the much more troubling intrusive and problematic tracking. The indirect effect of this, I believe, will be for fewer people to protect themselves from problematic cross-site tracking.
- rdiddly 9y ago
  I'm thinking that's not an indirect effect, but a goal of the initiative.
wjnc 9y ago
Step 2, if taken anti-competetively would end up in tens of billions of dollars in fines and possibly the break-up of the company. I don't find it that unlikely, all things considered, but it should be the nail in the coffin.
- dhimes 9y ago
  I think you are overly optimistic in the willingness and ability of our governments to protect us from privacy invasion. They seem much more willing to protected us from seeing naked people.
  - wjnc 9y ago
    I am EU-based and I guess you are US-based? That would count for some difference in perspective. IIRC Microsoft was fighting both US and EU competition cases and it pretty much handed them a lost decade. Not sure about the current US climate with regards to anti competitive behaviour, but if there are US-competitors in the ad market that are hit by step 2, I guess even some Republicans would see that as a bridge too far for Google?
    - dhimes 9y ago
      You're correct that I'm in the US. Microsoft repeatedly bested the US prosecutors- it took the EU to stop them. Is the EU aggressive about stopping trackers?
      - user5994461 9y ago
        I'd say yes when considering the existing and new privacy laws being passed. Some of the identification and data reselling that is typical in the US is not done for European customers because it's not allowed.
fauigerzigerk 9y ago
That's a valid concern, but it's also a very obvious one, and Google already being in the crosshairs of regulators will certainly be aware of it. They are clearly prepared to counter any such allegation in two ways. 1) It's not Google alone setting the standard. The "coalition for better ads" also includes Facebook, Microsoft and many others: https://www.betterads.org/members/ https://www.betterads.org/members/ 2) The rules are few and reasonably simple: https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/ The combination of these two facts doesn't make it easy to pursue a strategy like the one you laid out. So I think this is sincere and can work to some degree. BUT, the rules are insufficient! They don't ban animations. For me, anything that moves is a huge distraction especially next to or right in the middle of longer text. Another extremely annoying thing is never ending layout changes. Pages keep jumping up and down because ads are being inserted and moved around all the time. In other words, what this standard doesn't mandate is to keep the page still. That's why I like the reader mode in browsers that have one, such as Firefox and Safari.
- nukeop 9y ago
  The coalition of marketing giants. I'm sure they're only thinking of us and what's best for us when setting their "standards".
  - ams6110 9y ago
    It's like the coalition of tobacco companies thinking about how to stop kids smoking.
  - fauigerzigerk 9y ago
    The point is that they are Google's major competitors.
- aembleton 9y ago
  Totally agree. I need uBlock just to remove elements or more often entire sidebars from websites that insist on having animated gifs right next to text that I'm trying to read. I really can't concentrate with animation going on in in the corner.
dhimes 9y ago
Google is absolutely going down the wrong path here. They could blow Amazon away with one simple move that would benefit users AND, especially, advertisers. The problem with online ads and the reason that things are getting scummier and scummier is that they simply don't work very well for the advertiser. Most clicks are bogus; most prospects are unqualified. That's how Amazon wins: when you click Amazon, you are a buyer wanting to buy. That's why I would far more readily pay for an Amazon ad than a Google ad. But Google could get back in the game and dominate it with one simple step. If, in their search page, they had a button that said "I am looking to buy" or something along those lines; in other words, if they helped prequalify the prospect, then their ads would become super valuable and they would effectively become the meta-Amazon. Everybody would start using Google again for shopping. Right now, it's mostly Google = Research, Amazon = Shopping, which is why Google search ads are fairly worthless. I actually witnessed this flow one time: User has car from Budget rent-a-car. User things goole = internet, so goes to google, types "budget rental car" into search bar. Ad for Budget rent-a-car comes up. She clicks it to go to the page to check on her rental. So, Budget had to pay for a click from a user that was already trying to get to their page. From an advertiser's perspective that is not a good use of funds. It's almost as if Google has set up a gate that you have to pay to let your customers get through even after you've earned their business.
- tyingq 9y ago
  They do this already, albeit with the second click, not the first. https://imgur.com/a/M1SbG https://imgur.com/a/M1SbG
  - dhimes 9y ago
    They should put it here: https://imgur.com/a/SfdGr https://imgur.com/a/SfdGr
- rodorgas 9y ago
  > If, in their search page, they had a button that said "I am looking to buy" or something along those lines It seems that you are describing Google Shopping.
rdiddly 9y ago
Seems like they would find themselves in court over it if they played it like that.
hackme1234 9y ago
Exactly. Leave the adblocking to the third party extensions. Hopefully there will an option to opt-out.
bitmapbrother 9y ago
>That said, let's talk about the worst-case scenario, the thing that Google could actually do that is entirely anti-competitive. How exactly is this anti-competitive? The rules for ad guidelines are set by the Coalition for Better Ads and not Google. So any change in the rules that determine what an acceptable ad is must be approved by the coalition. The only scenario in which your hypothetical argument makes any sense is if Google controlled the coalition which they clearly do not and never will especially when you consider the caliber of companies in the coalition.
sneak 9y ago
If there were good intentions by Google here, it would block all ads, including Google’s.
- cpeterso 9y ago
  Chrome will block all ads, including Google's, on sites that are deemed to be serving "bad ads".
Feniks 9y ago
They just want people to watch the ads man. That's their only intention.
sorokod 9y ago
The entire exercise is then predicated on the assumption that adverts actually solve some problems that users have. That is not my experience.
yakitori 9y ago
> I think there's good intentions by Google here. There isn't "good intentions". It's almost pointless to talk in that terms when it comes to multinational companies. Corporations don't work that way. They aren't charities. Google is acting in its own best interests - what's good for the shareholders. There is no other consideration.
majani 9y ago
I believe Google already does that with video ads. Part of Google's rules are that there be no autoplay video ads. But on YouTube annoying autoplay video ads are their bread and butter
Sylos 9y ago
Why should Google have "good intentions"? It's a company, a publicly traded one at that. Their intentions are profit maximization. Abiding the law and maintaining somewhat of a reputation tend to be non-optional for that, but it's not their primary goal.
- kristiandupont 9y ago
  It’s still run by people. There is a possibility that they have good intentions.

by mabbo 9y ago

drngdds 9y ago

I feel like there's a simpler explanation that's still not 'good intentions': 1. Lots of people are using adblockers to block all ads, including Google's, and they don't like that. 2. People mostly install adblockers to block really annoying ads.* 3. By building in an adblocker that blocks annoying ads, people will stop installing full adblockers that also block Google's ads. *There are real issues with non-annoying ads, like tracking, but I don't think most people know or care very much about that.

dhimes 9y ago
This is the explanation they give in the post.
rahoulb 9y ago
> There are real issues with non-annoying ads, like tracking, but I don't think most people know or care very much about that. I speak to a lot of people who find "retargeting" deeply creepy. The awareness of the problem is there. However, they don't understand what causes it, how it works or that it's even possible to stop it.
- hinkley 9y ago
  Its also just bad salesmanship. There was an electronics store called CompUSA. I didn’t always shop there but I did buy Christmas presents there. Then one year they started using transparent shopping bags. Which means you can’t shop for anybody that is on the trip with you, or lives with you. It made it a hassle to keep a secret and I just gave up. So now if I am looking at jewelry for my partner, ads for the exact things I looked at will follow me around for the next several weeks. Dumber still, it will show me ads for an expensive item I already bought. Telegraphing my purchase history. If someone just bought a new TV, then showing then TV ads is pretty much the dumbest move you can make. The target is at an all time low for probability of purchasing that item. And worse, you risk triggering buyer’s remorse. Repeatedly. But this is Amazons engineering culture. Don’t reason about anything. Just try it and see. It’s amoral most of the time (but refusing to address ethics is itself immoral). They are basically a giant factory for throwing spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks. I think all they can do is get more parasitic until people say no.
  - ryanmerket 9y ago
    Wait. What does retargeting have to do with Amazon’s Engineering culture? Seems like a large leap in logic. Couldn’t it just as easily say “well, that’s Facebook’s caching layer not updating fast enough to remove finished campaigns?”

abandonliberty 9y ago

Google's intent is to protect their advertising revenue stream. That's not good or bad, it's just business. Definitely agree with you on the long term capability. There's just so much risk having your web interface owned by someone with a vested interest in what you see. In the meantime expect 3rd party attempts at gaming this functionality.

Gracana 9y ago
It's bad for anyone who doesn't want to be stalked by powerful corporations.
switch007 9y ago
> That's not good or bad, it's just business. I think I missed some nuance. Is doing business is beyond reproach these days?
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  seems to be if you listen to some of the corporate appologists around HN, where if it isnt explicitly against the law, people have nothing to complain about (and often not even then..)
  - FridgeSeal 9y ago
    There are definitely some for whom the pursuit of profit justifies the means, regardless of how immoral (or morally grey) it is, and any relevant laws are there to be dodged (bonus points for writing said actions off as "being disruptive").

ballenf 9y ago

The worst part about all of this is the conflation of advertising with tracking. They are very different beasts. Google "protects" us from visibly annoying ads while ignoring the much more troubling intrusive and problematic tracking. The indirect effect of this, I believe, will be for fewer people to protect themselves from problematic cross-site tracking.

rdiddly 9y ago
I'm thinking that's not an indirect effect, but a goal of the initiative.

wjnc 9y ago

Step 2, if taken anti-competetively would end up in tens of billions of dollars in fines and possibly the break-up of the company. I don't find it that unlikely, all things considered, but it should be the nail in the coffin.

dhimes 9y ago
I think you are overly optimistic in the willingness and ability of our governments to protect us from privacy invasion. They seem much more willing to protected us from seeing naked people.
- wjnc 9y ago
  I am EU-based and I guess you are US-based? That would count for some difference in perspective. IIRC Microsoft was fighting both US and EU competition cases and it pretty much handed them a lost decade. Not sure about the current US climate with regards to anti competitive behaviour, but if there are US-competitors in the ad market that are hit by step 2, I guess even some Republicans would see that as a bridge too far for Google?
  - dhimes 9y ago
    You're correct that I'm in the US. Microsoft repeatedly bested the US prosecutors- it took the EU to stop them. Is the EU aggressive about stopping trackers?
    - user5994461 9y ago
      I'd say yes when considering the existing and new privacy laws being passed. Some of the identification and data reselling that is typical in the US is not done for European customers because it's not allowed.

fauigerzigerk 9y ago

That's a valid concern, but it's also a very obvious one, and Google already being in the crosshairs of regulators will certainly be aware of it. They are clearly prepared to counter any such allegation in two ways. 1) It's not Google alone setting the standard. The "coalition for better ads" also includes Facebook, Microsoft and many others: https://www.betterads.org/members/ https://www.betterads.org/members/ 2) The rules are few and reasonably simple: https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/ The combination of these two facts doesn't make it easy to pursue a strategy like the one you laid out. So I think this is sincere and can work to some degree. BUT, the rules are insufficient! They don't ban animations. For me, anything that moves is a huge distraction especially next to or right in the middle of longer text. Another extremely annoying thing is never ending layout changes. Pages keep jumping up and down because ads are being inserted and moved around all the time. In other words, what this standard doesn't mandate is to keep the page still. That's why I like the reader mode in browsers that have one, such as Firefox and Safari.

nukeop 9y ago
The coalition of marketing giants. I'm sure they're only thinking of us and what's best for us when setting their "standards".
- ams6110 9y ago
  It's like the coalition of tobacco companies thinking about how to stop kids smoking.
- fauigerzigerk 9y ago
  The point is that they are Google's major competitors.
aembleton 9y ago
Totally agree. I need uBlock just to remove elements or more often entire sidebars from websites that insist on having animated gifs right next to text that I'm trying to read. I really can't concentrate with animation going on in in the corner.

dhimes 9y ago

Google is absolutely going down the wrong path here. They could blow Amazon away with one simple move that would benefit users AND, especially, advertisers. The problem with online ads and the reason that things are getting scummier and scummier is that they simply don't work very well for the advertiser. Most clicks are bogus; most prospects are unqualified. That's how Amazon wins: when you click Amazon, you are a buyer wanting to buy. That's why I would far more readily pay for an Amazon ad than a Google ad. But Google could get back in the game and dominate it with one simple step. If, in their search page, they had a button that said "I am looking to buy" or something along those lines; in other words, if they helped prequalify the prospect, then their ads would become super valuable and they would effectively become the meta-Amazon. Everybody would start using Google again for shopping. Right now, it's mostly Google = Research, Amazon = Shopping, which is why Google search ads are fairly worthless. I actually witnessed this flow one time: User has car from Budget rent-a-car. User things goole = internet, so goes to google, types "budget rental car" into search bar. Ad for Budget rent-a-car comes up. She clicks it to go to the page to check on her rental. So, Budget had to pay for a click from a user that was already trying to get to their page. From an advertiser's perspective that is not a good use of funds. It's almost as if Google has set up a gate that you have to pay to let your customers get through even after you've earned their business.

tyingq 9y ago
They do this already, albeit with the second click, not the first. https://imgur.com/a/M1SbG https://imgur.com/a/M1SbG
- dhimes 9y ago
  They should put it here: https://imgur.com/a/SfdGr https://imgur.com/a/SfdGr
rodorgas 9y ago
> If, in their search page, they had a button that said "I am looking to buy" or something along those lines It seems that you are describing Google Shopping.

rdiddly 9y ago

Seems like they would find themselves in court over it if they played it like that.

hackme1234 9y ago

Exactly. Leave the adblocking to the third party extensions. Hopefully there will an option to opt-out.

bitmapbrother 9y ago

>That said, let's talk about the worst-case scenario, the thing that Google could actually do that is entirely anti-competitive. How exactly is this anti-competitive? The rules for ad guidelines are set by the Coalition for Better Ads and not Google. So any change in the rules that determine what an acceptable ad is must be approved by the coalition. The only scenario in which your hypothetical argument makes any sense is if Google controlled the coalition which they clearly do not and never will especially when you consider the caliber of companies in the coalition.

sneak 9y ago

If there were good intentions by Google here, it would block all ads, including Google’s.

cpeterso 9y ago
Chrome will block all ads, including Google's, on sites that are deemed to be serving "bad ads".

Feniks 9y ago

They just want people to watch the ads man. That's their only intention.

sorokod 9y ago

The entire exercise is then predicated on the assumption that adverts actually solve some problems that users have. That is not my experience.

yakitori 9y ago

> I think there's good intentions by Google here. There isn't "good intentions". It's almost pointless to talk in that terms when it comes to multinational companies. Corporations don't work that way. They aren't charities. Google is acting in its own best interests - what's good for the shareholders. There is no other consideration.

majani 9y ago

I believe Google already does that with video ads. Part of Google's rules are that there be no autoplay video ads. But on YouTube annoying autoplay video ads are their bread and butter

Sylos 9y ago

Why should Google have "good intentions"? It's a company, a publicly traded one at that. Their intentions are profit maximization. Abiding the law and maintaining somewhat of a reputation tend to be non-optional for that, but it's not their primary goal.

kristiandupont 9y ago
It’s still run by people. There is a possibility that they have good intentions.