7 ms·

Apologies 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, w

Apologies 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 ago
Google 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.
- kakarot 9y ago
  Until there are better integrated controls for deciding which arbitrary code blobs run on your computer, a large majority of people using adblockers will continue to do so despite Google's efforts.
  - yeukhon 9y ago
    Yes, but often I will temporarily lift the block to load the page (just a few mins ago I was on AWS announcement page, I couldn’t play a video unless I reload the page without content blocker. Not only do we have a tracking epidemic, we have external js issue. I have to either whitelist fonts.google.com and some other js libraries, or else explicitly reload page without blocker whenever I see a broken website... this security-privacy consciousness i is a good trade-off, but can we, as developers, do something?
    - thisacctforreal 9y ago
      Have you given uMatrix a try?
      - kakarot 9y ago
        uMatrix on Firefox 57+ is completely broken for me, no frames are allowed even if the extension is soft disabled. I'm kind of at my wits end... it's severely degrading my experience. Thinking of just disabling it for now and just relying on uBO
  - davidcbc 9y ago
    I question whether a "large majority" of people using adblockers are aware they are doing anything other than blocking ads. The HN crowd tends to overestimate the tech-savviness of the general population when it comes to this stuff.
    - Tushon 9y ago
      OP said "large majority of people using adblockers", not that a large majority were already using them.
craftyguy 9y ago
It's not a hedge bet, necessarily. It's a way for them to get direct input from users on which ads are tolerable and which are not. This information will undoubtedly be used to make ads 'more tolerable' so that Google's bottom line is not impacted. I wonder if we're heading into a new era where online advertisements will become indistinguishable from non-ads. For example, a picture of your friend vs a picture of your friend with a soda bottle subtly added. That would be more tolerable to most everyone when compared to a flashy gif of that soda bottle bouncing around in your browser.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Wouldn't that "picture of your friend with a soda bottle" be considered a violation of the property rights of whoever took that picture? (lets leave alone the idea that the ad insertion violates the viewer's rights to unadulterated content - that could potentially be waived as a part of the EULA/TOS).
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    I don't think so. Many platforms include EULAs that basically state that they own content you upload to them. > viewer's rights to unadulterated content Not that I necessarily agree with you that this should be a right, but where in the world is anyone enforcing this as a right?
- yeukhon 9y ago
  Well, we are used to the kind you spoke of already. Soda, fastfood and car brands are mentioned in films and music videos. But if some Javascript adds a soda bottle to my friend’s picture, I can see that as a potential violation (if you use facebook, you would probably get a “You and Bob have friends for ten years now” greeting slideshow... made by facebook with effects. But I haven’t heard anyone sueing FB yet).
  - tomtang0514 9y ago
    What if instead of adding a soda bottle, they recognize there's a soda bottle in your friends' posts already and bump those images up in your feed?
euyyn 9y ago
> Google could offer a search engine free of any ads, as they did in the early days. 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. This reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Many startups offer their services for free or low cost, burning cash, to acquire users/mind-share until they find a way to be profitable. Google and Facebook found advertising as that way, and thus survived instead of running out of money. And are able to offer their services for free. "Google should ditch that and start again" doesn't even start to make sense.
- criley2 9y ago
  I think his claim is more of "The Search Product" can be run as a loss-leading free product just like Youtube was, while they profit elsewhere. And he covers this with the rhetorical question: They can do these things, but they don't, because being as anti-user as possible (while putting out the occasional fluff PR piece) earns them billions and billions and billions of dollars. He's basically saying "Google could remove advertising and figure out how to make money without being one of the most user-hostile organizations in software history, but they don't because their hostility to privacy and their revolution in combining aggressively curated private data with advertising has made them one of the richest corporations in history"
  - chii 9y ago
    > while they profit elsewhere. what is this elsewhere of which you speak? Google apps for your domain? Youtube red? Android licensing fees? The truth can be seen from the way users behave. Nobody wants to pay any money for online services, and if google were to stop advertising, they'd basically be bankrupt as the userbase is not willing to pay the equivalent amount to google that they derive from selling user data.
    - andrewaylett 9y ago
      > not willing to pay the equivalent amount to google that they derive from selling user data I think that's the GP's point -- but Google has enough cash in the bank that they could probably continue to provide services indefinitely if they took the decision to divest themselves of advertising and re-organise themselves appropriately.
s2g 9y ago
It’s not both sides, it’s just more control of the online advertising industry. Google should be broken up over this type of behaviour. Spend too much money in Washington though.
nfRfqX5n 9y ago
> Google could try to support itself by selling something, besides advertising. what could they possibly sell that would even come close to replacing ad revenue?
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
> 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 point is, they're not only a near-monopoly in web advertising, but also have very detailed data about their competitors (via GA and many other products) AND now are controlling the channel for 60% of users. It's unbelievable they managed to pull this out and still so few people seem to care.
- thisacctforreal 9y ago
  AFAIAC, Google should not exist in its current form. I'd urge employees to question if they think the organization should exist as it is. I hear the job is great, and the technical challenges are certainly wonderful, but Google and Facebook are the perfect setup for a turn-key tyranny.
setr 9y ago
>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. Doesn't google still make like 80% of its revenue off advertising in search? If its true, then they really don't have the money to drop it And instead of viewing it as double-betting, it can just as easily be seen as a compromise. They still want to advertise, and makes sense for them to want to, and the truly troublesome ads are poisoning the water for everyone, by leading (normal) people to total solutions ie adblock. Which is bad for business. In which case, you should expect them to find a middle-ground solution, and it would be absurd for google to move in either direction too strongly (because the money's not there). Its not that they're taking sides, but that they're trying not to.

ubercore 9y ago

Google 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.

kakarot 9y ago
Until there are better integrated controls for deciding which arbitrary code blobs run on your computer, a large majority of people using adblockers will continue to do so despite Google's efforts.
- yeukhon 9y ago
  Yes, but often I will temporarily lift the block to load the page (just a few mins ago I was on AWS announcement page, I couldn’t play a video unless I reload the page without content blocker. Not only do we have a tracking epidemic, we have external js issue. I have to either whitelist fonts.google.com and some other js libraries, or else explicitly reload page without blocker whenever I see a broken website... this security-privacy consciousness i is a good trade-off, but can we, as developers, do something?
  - thisacctforreal 9y ago
    Have you given uMatrix a try?
    - kakarot 9y ago
      uMatrix on Firefox 57+ is completely broken for me, no frames are allowed even if the extension is soft disabled. I'm kind of at my wits end... it's severely degrading my experience. Thinking of just disabling it for now and just relying on uBO
- davidcbc 9y ago
  I question whether a "large majority" of people using adblockers are aware they are doing anything other than blocking ads. The HN crowd tends to overestimate the tech-savviness of the general population when it comes to this stuff.
  - Tushon 9y ago
    OP said "large majority of people using adblockers", not that a large majority were already using them.

craftyguy 9y ago

It's not a hedge bet, necessarily. It's a way for them to get direct input from users on which ads are tolerable and which are not. This information will undoubtedly be used to make ads 'more tolerable' so that Google's bottom line is not impacted. I wonder if we're heading into a new era where online advertisements will become indistinguishable from non-ads. For example, a picture of your friend vs a picture of your friend with a soda bottle subtly added. That would be more tolerable to most everyone when compared to a flashy gif of that soda bottle bouncing around in your browser.

r00fus 9y ago
Wouldn't that "picture of your friend with a soda bottle" be considered a violation of the property rights of whoever took that picture? (lets leave alone the idea that the ad insertion violates the viewer's rights to unadulterated content - that could potentially be waived as a part of the EULA/TOS).
- craftyguy 9y ago
  I don't think so. Many platforms include EULAs that basically state that they own content you upload to them. > viewer's rights to unadulterated content Not that I necessarily agree with you that this should be a right, but where in the world is anyone enforcing this as a right?
yeukhon 9y ago
Well, we are used to the kind you spoke of already. Soda, fastfood and car brands are mentioned in films and music videos. But if some Javascript adds a soda bottle to my friend’s picture, I can see that as a potential violation (if you use facebook, you would probably get a “You and Bob have friends for ten years now” greeting slideshow... made by facebook with effects. But I haven’t heard anyone sueing FB yet).
- tomtang0514 9y ago
  What if instead of adding a soda bottle, they recognize there's a soda bottle in your friends' posts already and bump those images up in your feed?

euyyn 9y ago

> Google could offer a search engine free of any ads, as they did in the early days. 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. This reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Many startups offer their services for free or low cost, burning cash, to acquire users/mind-share until they find a way to be profitable. Google and Facebook found advertising as that way, and thus survived instead of running out of money. And are able to offer their services for free. "Google should ditch that and start again" doesn't even start to make sense.

criley2 9y ago
I think his claim is more of "The Search Product" can be run as a loss-leading free product just like Youtube was, while they profit elsewhere. And he covers this with the rhetorical question: They can do these things, but they don't, because being as anti-user as possible (while putting out the occasional fluff PR piece) earns them billions and billions and billions of dollars. He's basically saying "Google could remove advertising and figure out how to make money without being one of the most user-hostile organizations in software history, but they don't because their hostility to privacy and their revolution in combining aggressively curated private data with advertising has made them one of the richest corporations in history"
- chii 9y ago
  > while they profit elsewhere. what is this elsewhere of which you speak? Google apps for your domain? Youtube red? Android licensing fees? The truth can be seen from the way users behave. Nobody wants to pay any money for online services, and if google were to stop advertising, they'd basically be bankrupt as the userbase is not willing to pay the equivalent amount to google that they derive from selling user data.
  - andrewaylett 9y ago
    > not willing to pay the equivalent amount to google that they derive from selling user data I think that's the GP's point -- but Google has enough cash in the bank that they could probably continue to provide services indefinitely if they took the decision to divest themselves of advertising and re-organise themselves appropriately.

s2g 9y ago

It’s not both sides, it’s just more control of the online advertising industry. Google should be broken up over this type of behaviour. Spend too much money in Washington though.

nfRfqX5n 9y ago

> Google could try to support itself by selling something, besides advertising. what could they possibly sell that would even come close to replacing ad revenue?

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

> 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 point is, they're not only a near-monopoly in web advertising, but also have very detailed data about their competitors (via GA and many other products) AND now are controlling the channel for 60% of users. It's unbelievable they managed to pull this out and still so few people seem to care.

thisacctforreal 9y ago
AFAIAC, Google should not exist in its current form. I'd urge employees to question if they think the organization should exist as it is. I hear the job is great, and the technical challenges are certainly wonderful, but Google and Facebook are the perfect setup for a turn-key tyranny.

setr 9y ago

>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. Doesn't google still make like 80% of its revenue off advertising in search? If its true, then they really don't have the money to drop it And instead of viewing it as double-betting, it can just as easily be seen as a compromise. They still want to advertise, and makes sense for them to want to, and the truly troublesome ads are poisoning the water for everyone, by leading (normal) people to total solutions ie adblock. Which is bad for business. In which case, you should expect them to find a middle-ground solution, and it would be absurd for google to move in either direction too strongly (because the money's not there). Its not that they're taking sides, but that they're trying not to.