40 ms·
Chrome will stop displaying ads that are repeatedly flagged as disruptive
- kevincennis 9y agoI know that title isn't 100% right, but (a) the one on the blog is pretty much useless and (b) a more correct title would've been too long. Open to suggestions.
- moreless 9y ago"Chrome will stop displaying ads on offending sites"?
- halloij 9y ago"Google will continue along the road of censorship and policing websites to further their path to complete web dominance and control."?
- kretor 9y agoThe title ("Chrome will stop displaying ads that are repeatedly flagged as disruptive") is wrong in a couple of ways. According to the post: "... Chrome will stop showing all ads on sites that repeatedly display these most disruptive ads after they’ve been flagged. To determine which ads not to show, we’re relying on the Better Ads Standards from the the Coalition for Better Ads, an industry group dedicated to improving the experience of the ads we see on the web. ..." They are a bit vage in this post, but as we know from other posts and press briefings, this means: The site owners will get a notice when Google has found that their site is displaying ads not compliant with the Better Ads Standards. When they don't fix this until after 30 days, all ads on the site are blocked, even those complying with the standards. The site owners can then of course still fix it, and get removed from the block list. So the "flagging" is actually done by Google, and means the owners of the site get a notice.
- YCode 9y agoI wonder if I can hire a botnet to flag my competition out of business.
- pavel_lishin 9y agoYou could always hire one to drive up their fraudulent clicks, so I don't see why not.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoI'll one-up you: can we crowdfund a botnet to flag all ads, from everyone?
- kodablah 9y agoYou jest, but the the goal of this "coalition" is to do good enough to not make you want to do that. Of course, the human review built in would preclude most of the large botnet attempts. An analogy: Bittorrent:Netflix::uBlock-Origin:Coalition-for-better-ads
- ThePadawan 9y agoThat seems like the thing that (back in my day) 4chan would be 100% behind.
- earenndil 9y agoLook up adnauseum. They're still 100% behind that.
- dooglius 9y agoEven they still have exceptions turned on by default [0]. [0] https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#what-is-the-effs-do-not-track-standard-and-how-it-is-supported-in-adnauseam https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#what-is-the-effs...
- Cthulhu_ 9y agoYou could, but if found out you'd probably be put to trial and your own business would be destroyed.
- newscracker 9y ago
- olegkikin 9y agoI feel like they will get sued for that extremely quickly, considering their dominating position (Chrome) and being in the ad-serving business at the same time. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Browser_usage_share%2C_2009%E2%80%932016%2C_StatCounter.svg/1200px-Browser_usage_share%2C_2009%E2%80%932016%2C_StatCounter.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Br...
- mtgx 9y agoTechnically the advertising industry is behind this move. Whether or not that will hold in court, it remains to be seen.
- xstartup 9y agoThis kind of move is unlikely, nearly no one is running "legit" ad business. No one would like to to be under a microscope either.
- azernik 9y agoGenerally American and European anti-trust law as currently interpreted only cares about harm to the consumer.
- i_cant_speel 9y agoLess competition is generally harmful to the consumer.
- avs733 9y agoconceptually. However, the metric we use to dictacte that conceptual argument is what screws us (Americans). We have chosen increase in price as the primary metric. It becomes the responsibility of the accuser to prove and provide evidence of increased prices based on monopoly position. The Exponent podcast did a nice description of this last summer I believe (not sure what episode).
- chopin 9y agoAt least in Europe Google has been successfully sued by competitors.
- TekMol 9y agoI wish Google would do something against the so called 'Rogue Redirect Ads' in their AdSense network. Ads that redirect the parent frame. When I browse the web on my Android phone, I get redirected to spam every 10 pageviews or so. And no, it's not a problem of the phone. It's a known issue that ads can break out of their iframe: https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/11/08/heres-protect-rogue-redirect-ads-right-now-chrome/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/11/08/heres-protect-rogue... IMO Javascript should not be allowed in ads at all. Unless that gets implemented, I have the feeling that all blog posts about improving the user experience are just lip service.
- javery 9y agoThere is some work going on to remove Javascript, but it is slow going. Most publishers won't trade off revenue for performance and security so there is no incentive for the buyers to change their ways.
- TekMol 9y agoGiving publishers a choice would be a start. A checkbox 'Allow JavaScript' for AdSense publishers and a way to run revenue experiments about JS on/off.
- stordoff 9y agoThat does raise the question is Google big/ubiquitous enough to force that on publishers? If Google unilaterally decided no more JS in ads., would the publishers grumble about it but adapt, or would they look to other ad networks.
- marcodave 9y ago...onwards to the WebAssembly ads!
- adamgamble 9y agoThey have: https://blog.chromium.org/2017/11/expanding-user-protections-on-web.html https://blog.chromium.org/2017/11/expanding-user-protections...
- billysielu 9y agoHow about allowing us to install Adblock on Chrome for Android?
- purell_hack 9y agoThis is why I started using Firefox on Android. I need uBlock to browse the web safely.
- Filligree 9y agoI'd recommend installing Firefox instead. The default version is a little slow, but Firefox Quantum is fast.
- jnordwick 9y agoFirefox beta on Android is slow, but wrorst is if you use Google's search tools (like time range) Google sends Firefox a search results page without that ability or many other things (plus side, there's no amp). How about some browse neutrality from Google?
- falcolas 9y agoIf not forced to by some external entity, why would they ever do that? It's not in their best interests for any sense of the word.
- jnordwick 9y agoGoogle depends on external things too - especially the foss community. Eg, if github sees a connection coming from Google that is /not/ their indexing bot, give them a limited page.
- _ao789 9y agoabout time!
- Gargoyle 9y agoYeah, hard to see how this could possibly go wrong.
- bfrog 9y agoWould that include google ads? Because I personally find 99,% of ads to be disruptive
- paulirwin 9y agoFrom the article: "It’s important to note that some sites affected by this change may also contain Google ads. To us, your experience on the web is a higher priority than the money that these annoying ads may generate—even for us."
- ComputerGuru 9y agoExcept while with ad network x the network gets punished, with AdWords the specific advertiser does.
- notatoad 9y agoHow so? In either case, google is blocking ads at a per-site level. They aren't treating their own network any differently.
- bzbarsky 9y agoFundamentally, the setup is that Google is blocking all ads (and all ad revenue) on sites that serve any ads that don't comply with a certain Google-defined policy. Google of course makes certain that this policy allows whatever ads Google wants to serve. What is the most plausible outcome? That sites want ad revenue, do not want to take risks on losing it, and hence will only use Google for ads (because those will by definition comply with the policy). It's true that if a site serves both Google and non-Google ads Google may end up punishing the site (no ad revenue), even if it means some revenue loss for Google from the now-blocked Google ads. But if the goal is to make sure sites do not do this mixing of Google and non-Google ads, that seems like an acceptable cost to pay to achieve the goal, from Google's point of view.
- craftyguy 9y ago
- username223 9y ago"That's a nice website you have there. It would be a shame if you couldn't display ads." How is this anything other than a hilariously transparent shake-down? An ad company that controls both ends of the ad pipeline (Chrome and Adsense) is "protecting" people not by blocking terrible ads, but by blocking all ads on sites it deems "disruptive."
- mseebach 9y agoA shakedown usually involves an opportunity to pay to avoid the consequences. At the very least, it certainly isn't "hilariously transparent".
- username223 9y agoI assume Google's customer support staff can contact the owners of blacklisted sites and sell them more Adsense inventory, or encourage them to stop doing business with competing ad vendors.
- 6d6b73 9y ago"Google's customer support" - hehe, that's a good one..
- ComputerGuru 9y agoI presume the “pay opportunity” would be to use their own ad network. Yes, it is subject to the same rules. Officially.
- bzbarsky 9y agoYou can totally pay to avoid the consequences. Just buy all your ads from Google, and you're guaranteed to not be violating their policies.
- kodablah 9y agoUg, I've been railing against this for a bit now. For anyone who is unclear what is happening, Chrome downloads a set of partial hashes for sites that are considered bad by this coalition. They don't provide the full list of sites (evil). Then if the site matches it, it phones home to get the full hash to see if it matches that. If it does, it applies the EasyList (non-cosmetic) ad block rules. Problems: * The list is totally opaque (I am wrong, see EDIT 2 below) * They use the hard work of people like EasyList and subjectively apply it (though not that big of a deal, they do make it free/open for all uses after all) * They build it into the browser instead of as an extension or working with the existing ad-block community I urge everyone to keep with uBO and the like. How anyone can be for NN and then think a coalition can be an on-by-default gatekeeper of good or bad web items I'll never understand. At this point, I have a hard time separating browser from ISP wrt end user control and limited choice (especially for the masses who aren't familiar w/ these kinds of details). EDIT: I should note that this is the same mechanism by which the safe browsing lists work that tell you a page may be bad. For consistency, I disagree with that too of course, but I find the motives and targets here to be much more sinister. I would also say switch to FF, but they also use the secret safe browsing lists, so they'll probably switch to this as well. I say find a Chromium/Gecko based browser w/ all the ancillary shit like this removed. EDIT 2: There is a method of obtaining the entire list via the API, see comments below. I was wrong about the opacity and stand corrected. Still doesn't alleviate the concerns around gatekeeping. I wonder if Google would let me keep a running update of this list in GitHub so we can all watch changes and other things like adblockers could use it.
- quadrature 9y agoDo you have a source for this?, not disputing you, just want to read up on this.
- kodablah 9y agoNot really, just based on the blog post and comments at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16297550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16297550 and elsewhere where myself and others looked at the code. I could be wrong on some aspects of course and would welcome being corrected. Also, I cannot find a clear explanation from Google how the internal details of this ad blocker work (how they manage the hashes on their side, where this coalition list is maintained, etc). I would love a link, but alas with these kinds of things transparency is usually the first thing to go, especially since people don't demand it.
- thrownaway954 9y agokind of funny that they are doing it on Feb,15th... the day after Valentine's Day in the US.
- saagarjha 9y agoWhy is the date relevant?
- thrownaway954 9y agoIt's the day after Valentine's Day in the US... the most advertised, over-hyped, over-extended and shoved down your throat day of the year for us guys.
- saagarjha 9y agoNever experienced this, sorry
- jakobegger 9y agoThis sounds like a win/win policy. 1) Users that tolerate some ads no longer need to install an adblocker. 2) Legit advertisers don't get their ads blocked because fewer people use ad blockers 3) Crappy advertisers go out of business. Now lets hope that GDPR manages to get rid of the ubiquitous tracking and the web might actually become a nicer place again!
- larrik 9y agoOf course, ads with exploits and malware that inject into your computer can be invisible and hard to detect as "intrusive", which this doesn't seem to recognize or handle. I'll stick with ad-block.
- eli 9y agoThis justification always reminds me of the advice to run SSH on a non-standard port. Sure, I guess that makes you less of a target for bad actors, but if your browser can be compromised by simply visiting a website, that's a serious problem that's going to bite you whether you block ads or not.
- kakarot 9y agoWhat are you talking about? You're saying that theoretically, because there may be worse exploits from advanced actors that can target you for visiting a website, you shouldn't worry about basic security and whitelisting? Do you not lock your door at night, either, just because someone could smash through your windows?
- BenjiWiebe 9y agoThe SSH on a nonstandard port thing... I do it so I know if I see a failed login attempt, it's someone who is trying a lot harder than the average attacker and something I should investigate more fully.
- 9y ago
- jrochkind1 9y agoWhen I'm trying to visit some page, and I get an unrelated spammy popover that is hard to get rid of... I've gathered cause I know how this stuff works that it's _probably_ from a misbehaving google ad, but I don't know how I'd identify that to flag it, or if I'd spend the time to do so. I usually just get out of there.
- ibdf 9y agoJust take a look at this ad on the Verge (https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/5/16966530/intel-vaunt-smart-glasses-announced-ar-video https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/5/16966530/intel-vaunt-smart...). It takes 90% of the screen, and they wonder why people use ad blockers. Screenshot: https://ibb.co/f1eOGS https://ibb.co/f1eOGS
- vog 9y agoDo you have a screenshot? I don't feel like enabling JS for that site. Moreover, a screenshot would keep your argument understandable for readers who might encounter your comment in a year or later, when that site changed their layout or perhaps doesn't exist anymore.
- matt4077 9y agoThis is actually one the least annoying ad formats, at least in relation to size. You can simply scroll p and it’s gone. It’s also at the top of the page, not interrupting your reading. It’s far better than an overlay that requires you to close it by hitting a tiny x.
- minibobxx 9y agowww.idmcrack.ml
- panarky 9y ago"It’s important to note that some sites affected by this change may also contain Google ads. To us, your experience on the web is a higher priority than the money that these annoying ads may generate — even for us." Many of us are wired to see changes like this as a power grab camouflaged with flowery words, or possibly another step on the slippery slope to censorship and government control. We've been trained that every corporate action is selfish, by definition against our interests. But Google has demonstrated over the years that they're willing to sacrifice their short-term gains to maximize their long-term gains. Since their long-term gains depend on a vibrant, open web, sometimes their long-term selfish actions are actually in our interest, too.
- hartator 9y ago> To us, your experience on the web is a higher priority than the money that these annoying ads may generate — even for us. To the point of not receiving salaries? I’ve little sympathy here.
- lallysingh 9y agoWhy is that the threshold? Edit: autocorrect fixes
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 6d6b73 9y agoAll they want to do is to squash most of the competition . In a long term all of the small players in the ad industry will not survive if they have to fight with ad blocking software AND google.
- notatoad 9y agoAs long as google is fighting to make the internet better, and the competition is actively trying to make it worse, I'm okay with the competition being squashed.
- nukeop 9y agoAll ads are disruptive, as they are designed to draw your attention. If you can ignore an ad it did not serve the purpose it was created for. Does it mean Chrome blocks all ads now? Don't hold your breath.
- akkat 9y agoOne of the few exceptions that I can think of would be skymall. It is a magazine with only ads for overpriced useless stuff that you can read about (and maybe buy) while on a flight. I would normally read the entire magazine during the boring flight.
- andybak 9y agoOK. Outbrain and Taboola are pretty disruptive to my sanity and peace of mind. I wonder if we can get them blocked.
- cpeterso 9y agoI made a short blocklist (compatible with uBlock Origin and Ad Block Plus) that just blocks these crap ads served by Taboola, Outbrain, and the like: https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/ https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/
- troydavis 9y agoMeanwhile, Google still hasn't added a way disable auto-playing videos (regardless of whether a video is muted) in Chrome. Safari has easy options to set both a default and per-site preferences (https://support.apple.com/guide/safari/stop-autoplay-videos-ibrw29c6ecf8/mac https://support.apple.com/guide/safari/stop-autoplay-videos-...), including a "Never Auto-Play" choice. Despite years of user complaints and a fairly clear resolution to them, Chrome either watered-down their fix or solved the wrong problem entirely.
- ceejayoz 9y ago> Meanwhile, Google still hasn't added a way disable auto-playing videos (regardless of whether a video is muted) in Chrome. This bit is especially infuriating for me, as there seems to be a High Sierra issue with Chrome and videos (for me, at least - it's hard to figure out how widespread it is). They cause massive browser lag when they're on a page for me, to the point of missed characters while typing.
- drewg123 9y agoThere is supposedly a way. On Chrome 63 and newer, you can set "Document user activation" in chrome://flags/#autoplay-policy & relaunch. However, it does not seem to do much, if anything, for me. I tend to just use Privacy Badger to block any site that looks like a CDN
- yousir 9y ago> you can set "Document user activation" in chrome://flags/#autoplay-policy & relaunch. That won't fix the problem of auto-playing video on CNN or other sites that are not YT. Trying to read news from CNN is still a matter of waiting for the page to load, then wait for the video to load and start playing, then click on the pause button, and voila you can read in peace.
- _arvin 9y agoChrome has that also. Go to chrome://flags, search for Autoplay policy, and select Document user action is required. Note that if you use the Imagus extension, this could block some videos/gifs/etc from playing when you hover over a link.
- markdog12 9y agoAny way to disable this? For instance if you're already using an adblocker.
- mancerayder 9y agoDoes this include something that flashes / moves (within its self-contained box) even though it doesn't take over the screen? How is it that it's not outrageous to people that in the middle of a news article, a box with flashing colors and a picture of a woman in a bikini isn't something obviously extremely undesirable? The activity of reading requires concentration, if you're reading something that requires thought, that is. I'm baffled that our tolerance level for this didn't drop to the pitchfork level.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- wuliwong 9y agoI certainly like the idea of blocking these types of ads at first blush. I don't know much about the source of the "disruptive" label so that could be a bone of contention. I would assume there will be some UI element saying that Chrome blocked a "disruptive ad" similar to when it blocks popups but they didn't describe that in the post. Overall, I am optimistic.
- Ajedi32 9y agoYeah, it'll be basically the same as pop-ups: https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/chrome-adblocker https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/chrome-adblocker And the standards for what is considered "disruptive" are here: https://www.betterads.org/standards/ https://www.betterads.org/standards/
- pqwEfkvjs 9y agoJust use Firefox with Adblock/Ublock/Noscript. Even better, turn off Javascript and you'll never see an ad again. Unfortunately, there are too many devs who build their sites that completely get crippled if you by default don't allow Javascript. Even if you enable it, the site may still be doomed, because it tries to load fonts, libraries, css and who-knows-what kind of s* from external sites. Fg newage apatheistic anarchist hippie devs. Don't bundle in tons of dependencies to your freaking sites. If one of the dependencies goes down, so does your site. F* you! And f* those whorebag ads!
- throw7 9y agoThere's no mention if you can disable this or opt out. I'd rather them have a way for me to disable the floating videos usually on news sites.
- venomsnake 9y agoA browser's only job is to render, not to tamper with content.
- Overtonwindow 9y agoSo..if we all flag every ad as disruptive will Chrome stop displaying all ads?
- kretor 9y agoThe "flagging" is done by Google, not users. And according to the post: "Chrome will stop showing all ads on sites that repeatedly display these most disruptive ads after they’ve been flagged."
- herodotus 9y agoBe nice if Chrome offered, for a fee, a premium, ad-free experience, AND they shared the profits from that service with the visited web sites (in lieu of Ad placement revenue).
- kretor 9y agoIt's important to note that the "flagging" is not done by users, but by Google themselves. And they do this based on the Better Ads Standards. After the initial flagging, the site owners are notified, and have 30 days to fix it, until the ads on the site are blocked. They then of course can still fix it, and get the ads unblocked.
- theandrewbailey 9y ago> When we built Chrome, we wanted to create a way for people to interact with the magic that is the web, without the browser getting in the way. We created a browser that took up minimal space on your screen... Only for websites clutter that free space with hideously large and empty headers and unmovable footers that cover a good 20% to 30% of vertical space that would be better spent on the actual content of the page. (If I want to navigate your site, give me link to your homepage, and I'll take it from there.) Oh, and lets not forget those social sharing icons, even for people who don't social network! Let's rub salt into the wound: > (These ads are) designed to be disruptive and often stand in the way of people using their browsers for their intended purpose—connecting them to content and information.
- aplorbust 9y agoApologies if the comparison offends anyone but every time I see PR (public relations) about ad-blocking by Google, I see them as a company like Goldman Sachs, who has taken positions on both sides of a bet, so to speak. There is a glaring conflict of interest as others have pointed out; it cannot be ignored. Through strategic acquisitons such as Doubleclick, Google and its subsidiaries are the largest warehouse of advertising on the www. The company is the machine that keeps web advertising humming along. Google wants to keep everyone happy. Users are fed up with advertising. For example, Google could offer a search engine free of any ads, as they did in the early days.FN1 They have more than enough cash to do it. This would make users very happy. Google could try to support itself by selling something, besides advertising. But this will not happen. Why? (Rhetorical question. Not asking for an answer. We all know what it is.) By creating a web-advertising juggernaut and collecting the maximum allowable quantity information about users through every means legally possible, (far beyond merely search engine usage) Google has taken a position against users (the ones who dislike ads) as well as for them (as argued in myriad PR pieces). Google is not curbing it own actions (as the #1 promoter of advertising on the www), instead it is taking aim at advertisers. Some of those could be existing or potential clients (which might seem intriguing). But while its clients (be they advertisers, users or others) may experience "losses", like Goldman (or not; sorry, bad analogy!), Google always "wins". Any PR piece proclaiming that Google is taking sides with users (for a "better web") ignores that they also have taken sides with advertisers. Google has big bets on advertising. As everyone knows, users do not contribute significant inputs to the Google balance sheet; advertisers do. FN1 At that time one of the Google founders called out advertising as being something to avoid. Interestingly, there was no "disruptive" vs "non-disruptive" advertising distinction.
- ubercore 9y agoGoogle has also learned the lesson though that ads which produce a negative user impression aren't sustainable, and bad for both Google and advertisers. They have a vested long-term interest in making ads palatable and useful, or their cash cow goes away. Their incentives mesh with mine -- I would be less likely to demand ad blocker if ads weren't so disruptive.
- apeace 9y agoI appreciate the step forward, but what I really want is for my browser to block: * Battery-draining junk code * Bandwidth-hogging videos and GIFs * Spreading information about me cross-origin I would take an annoying page-covering PNG that I can close, over a tiny banner doing animations in Javascript, an auto-play video, a huge GIF which is basically a video, or the countless trackers which build databases about every site I visit. As such this change will not entice me to disable my ad blocker. Not even close.
- lolsal 9y agoGenuinely curious: How would you programmatically identify "battery-draining junk code"? Also, what is your threshold for 'bandwidth-hogging' videos and GIFs? Do you trust content-lengths from the server?
- apeace 9y agoI don't have a solution other than whitelisting or blacklisting, which is what I use the ad blockers for.
- joering2 9y agoIn the near future article on HN frontpage: "large Chinese bot network to notify Google of dangerous site to hire". You want your competitor site to be down, our 100,000 strong unique IP addresses bot network will take 2 weeks to notify Google of a harmful website. Just give us an URL of your competitor and wire us $10,000 and watch them being wiped out of the net! Guaranteed!
- skywhopper 9y agoI found immediately ironic that I was reading a post about how Google values the user so much that they built Chrome, a browser that gets out of your way and gives more of your screen over to the websites you are viewing but the site where this article is posted covers half my screen with site-navigation chrome that is 80% whitespace and that pops in and out semi-unpredictably. Sigh.
- redm 9y agoIt seems to me that it's irrelevant if you agree with Google's Ad Strategy or not. The problem is that Google gets to make the choices, they are now in a position to decide, via the proxy of Better Ads, whats allowed on the "Open Web". IMHO, this is just one more step in a less-open Internet.
- aj7 9y agoIf someone else said this already please forgive me. The worst ads are the one with a phony close X. You click it and you are driven to the webpage anyway. It seems to me you could test for this.
- makecheck 9y agoWe really, really don’t need Coalitions, Committees and other crap to tell us what ads are acceptable. This stuff is so straightforward that it’s mind-boggling we are still debating it: 1. Don’t be annoying: NO sound, NO video, NO auto-anything, NO flashy animation, NO obnoxious bright colors. What is so wrong with the discreet images and text that newspapers and magazines have used since forever? 2. Don’t disrespect me: NO treating my data plan as an infinite well for downloading crap, NO ad networks that can’t be bothered to have proper security, NO obscenely-complex tracking scripts, and NO trickery to make me click (pop-anything, delayed loading, etc.).
- twhb 9y agoLet’s talk about “acceptable ads”. Do you think they exist? I don’t. I avoid ads for two reasons: first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources, second that they drain attention, screen space, battery life, etc. I’m much more worried about the first than the second, yet “acceptable ads” (partially) addresses the second without touching the first.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> I avoid ads for two reasons: first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources Humans are fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources. (Overt, not organic or otherwise covert) ads are just human acts where the bias and intended manipulation are unusually transparent.
- twhb 9y agoDo you mean that it’s more reliable to discern the truth from ads than when the bias isn’t clear? Isn’t it even more reliable when interests are aligned, for example in the use of turn signals?
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Do you mean that it’s more reliable to discern the truth from ads than when the bias isn’t clear? No, I think that it's easier to reject (overt) ads manipulation because their bias is clear, compared to forms of manipulation where the goal of the manipulation is less clear; this doesn't help you get to the truth (except in some cases where that is revealed by what even the ad is forced to admit against its interest, or hinted at by what it avoids) from the ad content itself.
- acdha 9y ago> I avoid ads for two reasons: first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources, second that they drain attention, screen space, battery life, etc. Neither of these points need to be true. Consider if someone had a text ad which said “We made widgets. Click here to see our widgets”. There's nothing manipulative about that, it need not use more than a small amount of network or CPU to deliver, and all but the most extreme members of the no logo camp would tend to agree that there's nothing manipulative about it.
- pq0ak2nnd 9y agoI use an ad blocker so I rarely see them. Does this mean my vote doesn't count?
- criley2 9y agoI would like to take a second off topic and point out that the design of their blog^1 is really atrocious for a number of reasons - Massive, truly gargantuan header and footer that steals 40-50% of usable screen space for.... white space - Terrible type selection that is kerned too closely and is too thin to comfortably read on a white background. Eye strain is SIGNIFICANT. Like, come the heck on Google. You're trying to make the internet a better place. Maybe practice what you preach and follow Day 1, 101 course UX principles like "choose a type that is legible" and "don't use half of your article vertical space for pointless globs of white space in your header and footer" 1: https://i.imgur.com/0mJjdMq.png https://i.imgur.com/0mJjdMq.png
- natch 9y agoHow about if Google stops taking ads for malware like MacKeeper on YouTube? Speaking to Google: you guys are OK with promoting malware in exchange for money?
- Grue3 9y ago*) Google ads cannot be flagged as disruptive. Other conditions apply.
- tripzilch 9y agoOr users could, you know, use an extension to block all of them. For their own security and peace of mind.