3 ms·
Sure, I just don't see why that should be disqualifying. If they are too shy about blocking ads, then most users will not even perceive that this feature exists
by eli 9y ago
Sure, I just don't see why that should be disqualifying. If they are too shy about blocking ads, then most users will not even perceive that this feature exists and the status quo is unchanged. If they block even a handful of the worst offenders, it's a win for Chrome users. And if those blocks encourage people to clean up their act then it's a win for everyone.
- maxxxxx 9y agoI don't know. Maybe there is still a small benefit but I think their main reason for participation is to steer the effort into a favorable to them direction. Some benefits will come out of it but any real progress will be blocked or massively watered down because it would cut into their bottom line.
- sli 9y agoFor example, how could we ever confirm that Google treats reports on its ads the same as reports on other ads? It's unlikely that we will be able to make that confirmation, and should probably instead assume they are not treating them the same and insist that Google prove that they are. Err on the side of caution and all that.
- hueving 9y ago>Sure, I just don't see why that should be disqualifying The same reason every conflict of interest is a problem. You're not advocating for what's best for the side you are supposed to be representing because you are also representing a self interest.
- yeukhon 9y agoSo the question is who if not Google? If Google steps aside, who?
- mrguyorama 9y agoThe users installing ad blockers were doing okay
- maxxxxx 9y agoThis like trying to something about the opioid epidemic. It's hard to find money so let's just take money from opioid manufacturers.
- yeukhon 9y agoI get the point, but what's the solution exactly then? The fundamental problem lies in how ads industry works and how the psychology of ads work. Given Google owns one of the largest ad platform, it has the "power" to decide how an ad should be displayed, right? Because of conflict of interest, then what is the solution? Every problem has to have some solution. The argument here and above is driving us into a circle - no one knows, so Google is the "obvious" choice. I don't want to see ads myself, tbh, and this announcement doesn't really make a big difference anyway, but I am specifically asking if not Google, who and what's next?
- maxxxxx 9y agoI think we should use ad blockers.
- HedgeSparrow 9y agoThese are good points. I think the reason this kind of conflict really rubs the wrong way is because these kinds of things tend to have sour legacy effects at inopportune moments.
- rhizome 9y agoSelf-regulation should always come with a clear, convincing, and transparent rationale.
- dorgo 9y agoMicrosoft had a policy "Embrace, extend, exterminate". One could suspect that Google tries something similar here.