3 ms·

Google has a conflict of interest here given that they sell advertising themselves, so a single company policing ads is definitely suspect. I’d prefer to see de

Google has a conflict of interest here given that they sell advertising themselves, so a single company policing ads is definitely suspect. I’d prefer to see decisions like these made by a group of interested parties/companies rather than Google alone.

AdamSC1 8y ago
Among other features DuckDuckGo's extension blocks third-party trackers on a website (duckduckgo.com/app) and gives each site a privacy grade. Unlike other vendors, there is no pay-to-play option. We aim to take a principled rules based approach to blocking and raising the standard of trust online. (Disclaimer: DDG employee)
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > and gives each site a privacy grade. What's this based on? I'm more included to use Privacy Badger (from the EFF), why should I use the DDG extension instead?
- balibebas 8y ago
  I'm using DDG Browser to weeks after recently giving up on Brave. The DDG browser is nice and all but not as well designed as FOSS Browser (available on F-Droid). Thanks for offering a popular alternative though.
  - ahalam 8y ago
    Why did you give up on Brave? I find Brave a good option on Android with all the privacy options built in. What am I missing?
nitwit005 8y ago
While it's certainly ideal if everything is consensus driven, I have difficulty seeing that working here. Presumably the people serving these intrusive ads would disagree with any decision to get rid of them.
Klathmon 8y ago
They are part of the "Coalition for Better Ads" [1] which, aside from sounding like an evil group from a comic book, is trying to be that kind of group of interested parties. Members include Google, Facebook, and Reuters among many others. I thought that's what this was based on, but looking at the google blog post [2] I don't see any references to the betterads stuff directly. They do reference the same "Ad Experience Report" as the google blog post announcing the start of this idea to block "bad" ads mid last year [3], so they are at least involved. [1] https://www.betterads.org/ https://www.betterads.org/ [2] https://blog.chromium.org/2018/11/further-protections-from-harmful-ad.html https://blog.chromium.org/2018/11/further-protections-from-h... [3] https://blog.chromium.org/2017/06/improving-advertising-on-web.html https://blog.chromium.org/2017/06/improving-advertising-on-w...
- kerng 8y ago
  That coalition seems a but one sided, or? Where is EFF or DDG? Google appears to be smart about collaboration and playing by the rules creating a .org campaign. But make no mistake about the true motivation behind this is to set, control and influence the rules to lock out others.
  - Klathmon 8y ago
    It's not like they are trying to hide it, the coalition is very open about what they are, a group of advertisers and ad networks that are trying to get rid of bad ads so that people don't install adblockers that block all ads. This is copied from their site: >The Coalition’s research identifies the ad experiences that rank lowest across a range of user experience factors, and that are most highly correlated with an increased propensity for consumers to adopt ad blockers. Nobody has to make any mistake about the motivations, they are literally saying this is so that the "good" advertisers can take back the ecosystem and prevent the "race to the bottom" of more obnoxious ads paying the best, and so they can prevent more people from installing ad blockers by making their ads less obnoxious.
  - dagenix 8y ago
    I fully agree with the sister comment by Klathmon - they are being pretty transparent that it's a group that is trying to further the goals of online advertisers. As an outsider, I have no inside knowledge of what Google is doing. But, I think it's important to keep in mind that sometimes the goal of a business, even an ad business, can align with broader societal goals. I fully support online advertising as it supports a bunch of the sites that I visit daily. The web becoming increasingly overburdened with scam / malware "ads" is a threat to those sites as it causes people to install more ad blockers. It's also a threat to Google's business - as as those "ads" proliferate, its puts them in the uncomfortable position of either having to play in the mud, or, to cede ground to "advertisers" that are profiting off of ripping people off. Preventing such a race to the bottom is a smart business move on Google's part - and it may be driven purely by profit considerations. But, if that is what Google's long game is - it's not just good for Google, it's good for society too. Sometimes a business acting in its own self interest can be a good thing for everyone. I don't know enough about Google to state definitively that is what is happening here - but at the very least, it seems plausible. So, lets wait to freak out about it until we have actual evidence that there is some sort of bad behavior at play - something I haven't seen any evudence of yet.

AdamSC1 8y ago

Among other features DuckDuckGo's extension blocks third-party trackers on a website (duckduckgo.com/app) and gives each site a privacy grade. Unlike other vendors, there is no pay-to-play option. We aim to take a principled rules based approach to blocking and raising the standard of trust online. (Disclaimer: DDG employee)

craftyguy 8y ago
> and gives each site a privacy grade. What's this based on? I'm more included to use Privacy Badger (from the EFF), why should I use the DDG extension instead?
balibebas 8y ago
I'm using DDG Browser to weeks after recently giving up on Brave. The DDG browser is nice and all but not as well designed as FOSS Browser (available on F-Droid). Thanks for offering a popular alternative though.
- ahalam 8y ago
  Why did you give up on Brave? I find Brave a good option on Android with all the privacy options built in. What am I missing?

nitwit005 8y ago

While it's certainly ideal if everything is consensus driven, I have difficulty seeing that working here. Presumably the people serving these intrusive ads would disagree with any decision to get rid of them.

Klathmon 8y ago

They are part of the "Coalition for Better Ads" [1] which, aside from sounding like an evil group from a comic book, is trying to be that kind of group of interested parties. Members include Google, Facebook, and Reuters among many others. I thought that's what this was based on, but looking at the google blog post [2] I don't see any references to the betterads stuff directly. They do reference the same "Ad Experience Report" as the google blog post announcing the start of this idea to block "bad" ads mid last year [3], so they are at least involved. [1] https://www.betterads.org/ https://www.betterads.org/ [2] https://blog.chromium.org/2018/11/further-protections-from-harmful-ad.html https://blog.chromium.org/2018/11/further-protections-from-h... [3] https://blog.chromium.org/2017/06/improving-advertising-on-web.html https://blog.chromium.org/2017/06/improving-advertising-on-w...

kerng 8y ago
That coalition seems a but one sided, or? Where is EFF or DDG? Google appears to be smart about collaboration and playing by the rules creating a .org campaign. But make no mistake about the true motivation behind this is to set, control and influence the rules to lock out others.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  It's not like they are trying to hide it, the coalition is very open about what they are, a group of advertisers and ad networks that are trying to get rid of bad ads so that people don't install adblockers that block all ads. This is copied from their site: >The Coalition’s research identifies the ad experiences that rank lowest across a range of user experience factors, and that are most highly correlated with an increased propensity for consumers to adopt ad blockers. Nobody has to make any mistake about the motivations, they are literally saying this is so that the "good" advertisers can take back the ecosystem and prevent the "race to the bottom" of more obnoxious ads paying the best, and so they can prevent more people from installing ad blockers by making their ads less obnoxious.
- dagenix 8y ago
  I fully agree with the sister comment by Klathmon - they are being pretty transparent that it's a group that is trying to further the goals of online advertisers. As an outsider, I have no inside knowledge of what Google is doing. But, I think it's important to keep in mind that sometimes the goal of a business, even an ad business, can align with broader societal goals. I fully support online advertising as it supports a bunch of the sites that I visit daily. The web becoming increasingly overburdened with scam / malware "ads" is a threat to those sites as it causes people to install more ad blockers. It's also a threat to Google's business - as as those "ads" proliferate, its puts them in the uncomfortable position of either having to play in the mud, or, to cede ground to "advertisers" that are profiting off of ripping people off. Preventing such a race to the bottom is a smart business move on Google's part - and it may be driven purely by profit considerations. But, if that is what Google's long game is - it's not just good for Google, it's good for society too. Sometimes a business acting in its own self interest can be a good thing for everyone. I don't know enough about Google to state definitively that is what is happening here - but at the very least, it seems plausible. So, lets wait to freak out about it until we have actual evidence that there is some sort of bad behavior at play - something I haven't seen any evudence of yet.