5 ms·

I am not excusing Google for this behavior but in case you didn't know, you can let Google know which types of Ads you don't want to see based on your profile.

I am not excusing Google for this behavior but in case you didn't know, you can let Google know which types of Ads you don't want to see based on your profile. (Not Joking) This was vital to me at work, because I share my screen most of the day and I started getting ads for a Vacation Cruise that was sexual in nature that were unbelievably embarrassing. https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/2662856?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/2662856?co=GENIE.... I would suggest turning off ALL personalized ads on your Google profile, but in case you like getting ads about Pet products and just don't want your health information shared you can just deselect all the "health", "diet", and "medicine" categories. It really sucks to target block ads this way and you might even need to stretch to blocking categories like "family and relationships", to get all the ads you don't like.

Nullabillity 7y ago
Why not just get an ad blocker?
- msbarnett 7y ago
  Well, Google is taking steps to neuter those, so...
  - summm 7y ago
    I would be interested in more details
    - msbarnett 7y ago
      See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20050173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20050173 for a link to the ublock origin author's take on Chrome's upcoming changes, and discussion
    - bduerst 7y ago
      They're not - its clickbait sensationalism. They're changing how extensions can access web requests, in order to increase user privacy and prevent phishing. This requires all extension devs to change how they handle web requests. ublock is making a stink about how it's "targeting them", despite it being a change that all devs have to make, and you can still block ads with the new version. Adblock plus works fine with the new changes, for example. More here: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-chrome-manifest-v3-ad-blocker-extension-api/ https://www.xda-developers.com/google-chrome-manifest-v3-ad-...
      - AlexandrB 7y ago
        > They're not - its clickbait sensationalism. It's really not. The new mechanism for blocking ads is extremely limiting - not unlike what Safari provides. While Google's stated intention is to protect user's privacy it just so happens to cripple extensions that pose the greatest threat to Google's business. If Google wasn't one of the world's largest ad companies, perhaps their statements could be taken at face value. But perhaps in that case they would have taken the time to come up with an API that could achieve the goals of both Google and uBlock Origin. Edit: > Adblock plus works fine with the new changes, for example. Adblock plus is an "ad blocker" who's main concern is protecting the interests of "good" advertisers, not those of its users.
        bduerst 7y ago
        42% of chrome extensions have abused the web requests API in it's current format, and Google has long since said they're going to change how it works to protect users' privacy. uBlock Origin can change how they block ads for the new more secure manifest, just like AdBlock plus does. Even if you don't like ABP as a company it is an example of how it is still possible to block ads on the new more secure Chrome manifest, making it sensationalism to claim otherwise.
        msbarnett 7y ago
        > 42% of chrome extensions have abused the web requests API in it's current format, and Google has long since said they're going to change how it works to protect users' privacy. So we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater because Google's extension approval process is so dismal it allows through a large minority of abusive extensions, and this is supposed to make us feel better about a change in the API that gives this dismal and apparently near-useless approval process more control over the contents and behaviour of ad blockers? > uBlock Origin can change how they block ads for the new more secure manifest, just like AdBlock plus does Which, again, entails UBlock Origin moving from a frequently updated list of blocking rules relying on sophisticated wildcard matching functionality to a hard-coded, fixed-size static list of blocked URLs that are not allowed to contain any wildcards for redirecting to more secure or private versions of content, and which cannot use any other kind of more complex ad-blocking logic. A hard-coded list of dumb blocked domains that is infrequently updated only with Google's approval (via the same dismal process that allowed through 42% of abusive extensions above...) of a complete re-submission of the blocking extension, approved or rejected at their whim and leisure, because live updating rulesets will also be banned "for security". "UBlock Origin will be able to work every bit as poorly, and be every bit as easily defeated as Ad-Block Plus' unsophisticated, frequently useless filters are, plus its rules will get updated far less often" is, again, not in any way the good thing you seem to be pretending it is. Just some highlights about this "great" change that you're signing the praises of, discoverable from the very link you posted: > uBlock Origin heavily relies on pattern matching, and the extension developer stated that it is not possible to retrofit his extension’s matching algorithm to meet the APIs requirement. The API would also require a complete extension update to simply update the filter list, which would be a far too frequent activity considering the frequency with which these filter lists are updated. Of course, these updates would also hinge on Google’s extension review criteria and processes. Hmmm. > The blocking list must be present in the extension at install time and can’t be updated without updating the entire extension. This is subject to Google’s extension review criteria and processes. This means you won’t be able to opt-out of something like AdBlock Plus’ Acceptable Ads program, as the proposed new API doesn’t allow for rulesets to be turned on or off in the same extension. Hmmm. > declarativeNetRequest’s redirect action can only redirect to a static URL; meaning that you cannot redirect using the new API from a pattern like “://www.youtube.com/embed/” to “https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/%2” https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/%2”. This is pretty much all my Privacy Enhanced Mode for Embedded YouTube Videos extension does, by the by. Hmmm. > Some extensions, like the EFF’s Privacy Badger that compiles lists of and blocks web beacons and trackers based on browsing activity (a method that breaks a fair number of websites), wouldn’t survive the transition. Hmmm. This API redesign "for security" just so happens to expertly fuck over the most powerful privacy and ad-blocking extensions, while leaving neutered crap like Adblock Plus With Mandatory "Acceptable" Ads working. None of this is an accident. With Ublock Origin neutered out of usefulness, driving users back to Adblock Plus with mandatory acceptable ads that just so happen to whitelist Google will, of course, be a big win for Google's ad revenue.
- ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
  That's a good question. I'm a web developer in the Marketing department, so a lot of the work I do involves how ads work with pages. Having to constantly turn off ad blocker is not only inconvenient but is also slightly embarrassing when I get called out for not looking at things the way a customer would be seeing them.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  It's really tedious to make a lot of websites work with an ad-blocker. I only started using one when I got some malicious ads, but I still have to disable it for almost every business's site that I need to log in to. And they break in non-obvious ways, so you have to remember to try turning it off.
perl4ever 7y ago
Sure, I did my best to turn off all personalized Google ads, and then every now and then I get something extremely specific, that has to be targeted at somebody. But is it based on my data, or something that correlated with me? Something not part of Google's data per se?

Nullabillity 7y ago

Why not just get an ad blocker?

msbarnett 7y ago
Well, Google is taking steps to neuter those, so...
- summm 7y ago
  I would be interested in more details
  - msbarnett 7y ago
    See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20050173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20050173 for a link to the ublock origin author's take on Chrome's upcoming changes, and discussion
  - bduerst 7y ago
    They're not - its clickbait sensationalism. They're changing how extensions can access web requests, in order to increase user privacy and prevent phishing. This requires all extension devs to change how they handle web requests. ublock is making a stink about how it's "targeting them", despite it being a change that all devs have to make, and you can still block ads with the new version. Adblock plus works fine with the new changes, for example. More here: https://www.xda-developers.com/google-chrome-manifest-v3-ad-blocker-extension-api/ https://www.xda-developers.com/google-chrome-manifest-v3-ad-...
    - AlexandrB 7y ago
      > They're not - its clickbait sensationalism. It's really not. The new mechanism for blocking ads is extremely limiting - not unlike what Safari provides. While Google's stated intention is to protect user's privacy it just so happens to cripple extensions that pose the greatest threat to Google's business. If Google wasn't one of the world's largest ad companies, perhaps their statements could be taken at face value. But perhaps in that case they would have taken the time to come up with an API that could achieve the goals of both Google and uBlock Origin. Edit: > Adblock plus works fine with the new changes, for example. Adblock plus is an "ad blocker" who's main concern is protecting the interests of "good" advertisers, not those of its users.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        42% of chrome extensions have abused the web requests API in it's current format, and Google has long since said they're going to change how it works to protect users' privacy. uBlock Origin can change how they block ads for the new more secure manifest, just like AdBlock plus does. Even if you don't like ABP as a company it is an example of how it is still possible to block ads on the new more secure Chrome manifest, making it sensationalism to claim otherwise.
        msbarnett 7y ago
        > 42% of chrome extensions have abused the web requests API in it's current format, and Google has long since said they're going to change how it works to protect users' privacy. So we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater because Google's extension approval process is so dismal it allows through a large minority of abusive extensions, and this is supposed to make us feel better about a change in the API that gives this dismal and apparently near-useless approval process more control over the contents and behaviour of ad blockers? > uBlock Origin can change how they block ads for the new more secure manifest, just like AdBlock plus does Which, again, entails UBlock Origin moving from a frequently updated list of blocking rules relying on sophisticated wildcard matching functionality to a hard-coded, fixed-size static list of blocked URLs that are not allowed to contain any wildcards for redirecting to more secure or private versions of content, and which cannot use any other kind of more complex ad-blocking logic. A hard-coded list of dumb blocked domains that is infrequently updated only with Google's approval (via the same dismal process that allowed through 42% of abusive extensions above...) of a complete re-submission of the blocking extension, approved or rejected at their whim and leisure, because live updating rulesets will also be banned "for security". "UBlock Origin will be able to work every bit as poorly, and be every bit as easily defeated as Ad-Block Plus' unsophisticated, frequently useless filters are, plus its rules will get updated far less often" is, again, not in any way the good thing you seem to be pretending it is. Just some highlights about this "great" change that you're signing the praises of, discoverable from the very link you posted: > uBlock Origin heavily relies on pattern matching, and the extension developer stated that it is not possible to retrofit his extension’s matching algorithm to meet the APIs requirement. The API would also require a complete extension update to simply update the filter list, which would be a far too frequent activity considering the frequency with which these filter lists are updated. Of course, these updates would also hinge on Google’s extension review criteria and processes. Hmmm. > The blocking list must be present in the extension at install time and can’t be updated without updating the entire extension. This is subject to Google’s extension review criteria and processes. This means you won’t be able to opt-out of something like AdBlock Plus’ Acceptable Ads program, as the proposed new API doesn’t allow for rulesets to be turned on or off in the same extension. Hmmm. > declarativeNetRequest’s redirect action can only redirect to a static URL; meaning that you cannot redirect using the new API from a pattern like “://www.youtube.com/embed/” to “https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/%2” https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/%2”. This is pretty much all my Privacy Enhanced Mode for Embedded YouTube Videos extension does, by the by. Hmmm. > Some extensions, like the EFF’s Privacy Badger that compiles lists of and blocks web beacons and trackers based on browsing activity (a method that breaks a fair number of websites), wouldn’t survive the transition. Hmmm. This API redesign "for security" just so happens to expertly fuck over the most powerful privacy and ad-blocking extensions, while leaving neutered crap like Adblock Plus With Mandatory "Acceptable" Ads working. None of this is an accident. With Ublock Origin neutered out of usefulness, driving users back to Adblock Plus with mandatory acceptable ads that just so happen to whitelist Google will, of course, be a big win for Google's ad revenue.
ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
That's a good question. I'm a web developer in the Marketing department, so a lot of the work I do involves how ads work with pages. Having to constantly turn off ad blocker is not only inconvenient but is also slightly embarrassing when I get called out for not looking at things the way a customer would be seeing them.
perl4ever 7y ago
It's really tedious to make a lot of websites work with an ad-blocker. I only started using one when I got some malicious ads, but I still have to disable it for almost every business's site that I need to log in to. And they break in non-obvious ways, so you have to remember to try turning it off.

perl4ever 7y ago

Sure, I did my best to turn off all personalized Google ads, and then every now and then I get something extremely specific, that has to be targeted at somebody. But is it based on my data, or something that correlated with me? Something not part of Google's data per se?