3 ms·
Google is an ad company. The logical strategy is embrace extend extinguish ad blocking. If your extension is getting attacked and stripped of functionality mini
by michaelmrose 4y ago
Google is an ad company. The logical strategy is embrace extend extinguish ad blocking. If your extension is getting attacked and stripped of functionality minimal investment in keeping it working likely to continue to work the longest is logical
- nightpool 4y agoMany people have responded to this argument across many different threads, but just to reiterate: this is just the exact opposite of true. Google's ads are very, very easy to block, and you could do it with a one-line chrome extension. The vast majority of complexity in ad blockers is required for other ads that live outside of Google's ecosystem. If you really believed that Google was making their MV3 changes based on their business goals for their ads team (a pretty ludicrous idea when you think about how big Google is and how far separated the ads department and extensions teams are), then the inescapable conclusion is that Google should be supporting ad blockers themselves, to hurt the smaller companies that threaten their monopoly by trying to work around ad blockers.
- michaelmrose 4y agoMV3 has zero privacy benefits as it doesn't stop the same extensions from snooping but it does force substantial limitations like not having a separate list separated from the extension itself and an artificial limitation on the size of its blocklist. It is not expected that mv3 immediately destroys all ad blocking but if you look at the fact that google already makes such impossible on mobile you can surmise that it is a likely step towards eliminating all adblocking in the future. Especially since they have so obviously lied to everyone about the motivation for the change. The end game is adblocking that blocks "unacceptable" ads in the name of protecting you from content that is offensive, adult, malware, or experience destroyingly bad while allowing in offensive google ads. In the name of not getting sued select partners will be allowed to prove they apply the same standards and will be allowed to access your eyeballs. Feel free to revisit this in 3-5 years when I'm obviously right.
- thiht 4y ago> The logical strategy is embrace extend extinguish ad blocking The logical strategy is to extinguish. They never embraced or extended it.
- michaelmrose 4y agoImplementing what amounts to ad blocking in your browser which all extensions must necessarily be mere lists of what to block rather than complex programs that examine and modify data IS the embrace. Extending it would involve either implementing acceptable ads functionality that was optional. Extinguish is making it mandatory in order to be listed on the chrome web store and allowing the browser to transmit some certification that it doesn't have an extension installed that would modify data in transit to ensure "security" making it hard to use the modern web with a browser that didn't transmit such. Locally installing extensions is only for development so that any such modification will effectively break such a seal and make it impossible for you to view $SOME_RANDOM_GOOGLE_ADS_USING_SITE which will complain your browser is insecure and refuse to work kind of like sites presently block adblockers but with browser support making it much harder to avoid.