4 ms·

While the article is from 2017, the relevance is high today. Large adtech companies are coalescing and supporting a single browser framework that gives them a

by tomrod 4y ago

While the article is from 2017, the relevance is high today. Large adtech companies are coalescing and supporting a single browser framework that gives them a modicum of control around how adblockers are integrated into the extensions, while also funding directly or indirectly realistic browser competition through Firefox (sorry Brave and Vivaldi... still a ways to go market share-wise). The economist in me thinks there is formal and informal coordination to make this ad "market" exist (no one wants ads, really, they want search engines with relevant results) and there is exercise in market power to the detriment of businesses purchasing advertising (and waste to society writ large).

rglullis 4y ago
> still a ways to go market share-wise Brave is already at 60+ million MAU. It's already 1/4 of the market share from Firefox. Brave's market share is rising, Firefox is declining. If there is one horse to bet here, it is Brave. Sticking with Firefox is just playing "controlled opposition" right now.
- tomrod 4y ago
  I edited my original comment, which give Brave kudos for their growth, because I wanted to acknowledge their fight against an oligarchic adtech market. Perhaps ironically, I removed the comment because I thought it could lead to a pro/anti Brave fight that I wasn't intending to ignite. (I'm not a Brave user due to their prior business model and feature rollout around crypto). It would be nice to see innovation in this space but web standards implementation requirements may make that bar too high? I'm not a browser dev, just an armchair techie.
- anonymous_sorry 4y ago
  Brave advocates should spend most of their energy going after Chrome and Safari users. If Brave can convert them better than Firefox can (which, sadly, seems to be quite a low bar), they'll overtake soon enough. Attempting to convert Firefox users is not a long term strategy, and doesn't do as much or anything to create a better web.
  - dandellion 4y ago
    I had been using Firefox for something like 15 years before I switched to Brave a few months ago. I was really skeptical of the crypto stuff Brave was doing and I still am, but at least they're innovating and trying different financing models. Meanwhile Firefox spent the last few years removing features that kept me using it over Chrome: rss, compact density, bookmark descriptions, etc. On top of that Mozilla gets 90% of their money from Google, and they still don't have a way to donate directly to Firefox, the only option is to donate to Mozilla and watch them spend most of the money on silly things like Pocket and other wasteful initiatives, while the people in charge just line their pockets.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Likewise. I loved Firefox and found their containers super useful. I've not been shy in sharing that their summer 2020 mobile rollout was so poor I moved away from it on both mobile and desktop (I often get flack from Firefox diehards for mentioning this though). Ah well. Chrome profiles for now, unfortunately. I like Vivaldi on mobile with built in adblocking and some bit of control for text size (aging has not been kind to my eyes, mobile text is too small most of the time). Vivaldi hasn't made it pass evaluation stage on desktop for me as it often crashes when I try it (linux distros). (ed: tried it years before) Browsers are going to continue to be a central part of our OS -- no stopping that. I hope the companies can be taken to task for colluding and that innovation is not stifled.
      - menotyou 4y ago
        > Vivaldi hasn't made it pass evaluation stage on desktop for me as it often crashes when I try it (linux distros). I happily use Vivaldi on Linux Mint for more than two years without any issues!?
        tomrod 4y ago
        Great! The last time I evaluated it in Fedora (maybe 3 years now?) it was crashing under moderate use, and haven't had time to check recently. Perhaps when some time clears up I should give it another go.
- nnopepe 4y ago
  *Self reported MAU. With no-way of outside verification as brave doesn't have it's own user agent string
nightpool 4y ago
What are you referring to? Which "Large adtech companies" support a framework that gives them "control" over adblocking, and how? If you're referring to MV3, then I think you've blown things significantly out of proportion
- ayushnix 4y ago
  > If you're referring to MV3, then I think you've blown things significantly out of proportion Have you read the blog post by AdGuard about their MV3 adblocker and, specifically, the limitations of that addon compared what we had before? https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-mv3.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-mv3.html I wouldn't call it "blown things significantly out of proportion", not unless you're okay with compromised ad blocking capabilities, which some people seem to be in the name of security which is oxymoronic.
  - nightpool 4y ago
    I'm saying you're blowing things out of proportion by referring to companies, plural, and saying that any other ad tech company is at all associated with what Google is doing. Even if they stand to gain from it, they have absolutely no input into the process (it's not even an open web platform like other Chrome changes!). And as every single thread on the subject on HN has made excruciatingly clear, Google has nothing to gain from the MV3 changes ad-wise, since they serve all of their ads from the exact same domain they've always served them from, and they can be blocked with 1 (one) single filter rule. The limitations in MV3 primarily affect the sketchiest and newest adtech providers, exactly who Chrome is already seeking to block for user experience reasons and who Google Ads probably won't work with. There's no reason to believe that the MV3 filter changes are the result of any collusion or malicious intent inside of Google, unless for some reason they feel like taking revenue share AWAY from their ads business by helping companies they hate.
p0pcult 4y ago
There's a lot more collusion going on here as well. I work in the ad measurement/ad tech industry; it is rife with misaligned incentives. Ad measurement companies have no incentive to accurately report the incremental sales (i.e., that which would not have happened, had the ad not aired) of the ad they are measuring. Why not? Because their clients, the marketing function at the advertiser, don't get their bonuses paid based on the accuracy of the measurement firm's work product. They get their bonuses (and ultimately salary) based on the success of their marketing efforts. If a company like mine reports that an ad on TikTok for Dran-o didn't sell any Dran-o that wouldn't have been sold anyway, Dran-o's marketers will just find a different ad measurement company. Furthermore, as a platform, TikTok has to prove to potential advertisers that TikTok is a good platform on which to place ads. So TikTok also has no incentive for accurate measurement. So, what does a company like mine do? Juice the numbers. Because the company leadership is judged not on accuracy of measurement, but profit. It's a lot like the bond rating agencies that lead, in part, to the 2008 housing crisis, getting paid by the people whose homework they were grading. This is an entirely true story, btw. Apparently if you advertise Dran-o to kids on TikTok, you get something north of a $2.00 ROI. Completely ridiculous. In another anecdote, we measure advertising on YouTube. Google would only let us implement changes to our measurement software if they "improved" the software. (Again, I don't mean accuracy. Neither did Google.) How do you solve this? Well, you can start by letting the CFO at the advertiser own the ad measurement responsibility. The CFO actually has incentive to understand if the marketers are just pissing away money. The shareholders do too. Perhaps there's also room for an industry watchdog, paid for by advertising platforms and advertisers, that certified the practices of measurement companies? Anyway, shareholders are getting fleeced. All so the Valley can rake in beaucoup bucks at the expense of shareholders. With the added benefit of a layer of surveillance apparatus suffusing the internet. Fun times! There's actually a lot of scholarship on how advertising's effects are a lot lower than the ad measurement and advertising industry thinks they are. (Go figure that the people who profit from advertising think it works.) Freakonomics Radio episodes 440 and 441 are a good place to start, for those who are interested.
- dec0dedab0de 4y ago
  Your point about the numbers being fudged makes intuitive sense, and almost feels obvious, however... I definitely remember asking my mom to buy liquid plumber when I was about 13 because I had a slow drain in a bathroom she never used. I only realized that slow=clogged from the commercials I saw.
menotyou 4y ago
> no one wants ads, really, they want search engines with relevant results I actually don't care about ads. I use an ad-blocker because I am concerned about everybody in the industry tries to track and profile me.
- tomrod 4y ago
  So in your case, ads are a mode of the item that concerns you (tracking). I share your dislike of tracking and profiling.

by tomrod 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago

> still a ways to go market share-wise Brave is already at 60+ million MAU. It's already 1/4 of the market share from Firefox. Brave's market share is rising, Firefox is declining. If there is one horse to bet here, it is Brave. Sticking with Firefox is just playing "controlled opposition" right now.

tomrod 4y ago
I edited my original comment, which give Brave kudos for their growth, because I wanted to acknowledge their fight against an oligarchic adtech market. Perhaps ironically, I removed the comment because I thought it could lead to a pro/anti Brave fight that I wasn't intending to ignite. (I'm not a Brave user due to their prior business model and feature rollout around crypto). It would be nice to see innovation in this space but web standards implementation requirements may make that bar too high? I'm not a browser dev, just an armchair techie.
anonymous_sorry 4y ago
Brave advocates should spend most of their energy going after Chrome and Safari users. If Brave can convert them better than Firefox can (which, sadly, seems to be quite a low bar), they'll overtake soon enough. Attempting to convert Firefox users is not a long term strategy, and doesn't do as much or anything to create a better web.
- dandellion 4y ago
  I had been using Firefox for something like 15 years before I switched to Brave a few months ago. I was really skeptical of the crypto stuff Brave was doing and I still am, but at least they're innovating and trying different financing models. Meanwhile Firefox spent the last few years removing features that kept me using it over Chrome: rss, compact density, bookmark descriptions, etc. On top of that Mozilla gets 90% of their money from Google, and they still don't have a way to donate directly to Firefox, the only option is to donate to Mozilla and watch them spend most of the money on silly things like Pocket and other wasteful initiatives, while the people in charge just line their pockets.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Likewise. I loved Firefox and found their containers super useful. I've not been shy in sharing that their summer 2020 mobile rollout was so poor I moved away from it on both mobile and desktop (I often get flack from Firefox diehards for mentioning this though). Ah well. Chrome profiles for now, unfortunately. I like Vivaldi on mobile with built in adblocking and some bit of control for text size (aging has not been kind to my eyes, mobile text is too small most of the time). Vivaldi hasn't made it pass evaluation stage on desktop for me as it often crashes when I try it (linux distros). (ed: tried it years before) Browsers are going to continue to be a central part of our OS -- no stopping that. I hope the companies can be taken to task for colluding and that innovation is not stifled.
    - menotyou 4y ago
      > Vivaldi hasn't made it pass evaluation stage on desktop for me as it often crashes when I try it (linux distros). I happily use Vivaldi on Linux Mint for more than two years without any issues!?
      - tomrod 4y ago
        Great! The last time I evaluated it in Fedora (maybe 3 years now?) it was crashing under moderate use, and haven't had time to check recently. Perhaps when some time clears up I should give it another go.
nnopepe 4y ago
*Self reported MAU. With no-way of outside verification as brave doesn't have it's own user agent string

nightpool 4y ago

What are you referring to? Which "Large adtech companies" support a framework that gives them "control" over adblocking, and how? If you're referring to MV3, then I think you've blown things significantly out of proportion

ayushnix 4y ago
> If you're referring to MV3, then I think you've blown things significantly out of proportion Have you read the blog post by AdGuard about their MV3 adblocker and, specifically, the limitations of that addon compared what we had before? https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-mv3.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-mv3.html I wouldn't call it "blown things significantly out of proportion", not unless you're okay with compromised ad blocking capabilities, which some people seem to be in the name of security which is oxymoronic.
- nightpool 4y ago
  I'm saying you're blowing things out of proportion by referring to companies, plural, and saying that any other ad tech company is at all associated with what Google is doing. Even if they stand to gain from it, they have absolutely no input into the process (it's not even an open web platform like other Chrome changes!). And as every single thread on the subject on HN has made excruciatingly clear, Google has nothing to gain from the MV3 changes ad-wise, since they serve all of their ads from the exact same domain they've always served them from, and they can be blocked with 1 (one) single filter rule. The limitations in MV3 primarily affect the sketchiest and newest adtech providers, exactly who Chrome is already seeking to block for user experience reasons and who Google Ads probably won't work with. There's no reason to believe that the MV3 filter changes are the result of any collusion or malicious intent inside of Google, unless for some reason they feel like taking revenue share AWAY from their ads business by helping companies they hate.

p0pcult 4y ago

There's a lot more collusion going on here as well. I work in the ad measurement/ad tech industry; it is rife with misaligned incentives. Ad measurement companies have no incentive to accurately report the incremental sales (i.e., that which would not have happened, had the ad not aired) of the ad they are measuring. Why not? Because their clients, the marketing function at the advertiser, don't get their bonuses paid based on the accuracy of the measurement firm's work product. They get their bonuses (and ultimately salary) based on the success of their marketing efforts. If a company like mine reports that an ad on TikTok for Dran-o didn't sell any Dran-o that wouldn't have been sold anyway, Dran-o's marketers will just find a different ad measurement company. Furthermore, as a platform, TikTok has to prove to potential advertisers that TikTok is a good platform on which to place ads. So TikTok also has no incentive for accurate measurement. So, what does a company like mine do? Juice the numbers. Because the company leadership is judged not on accuracy of measurement, but profit. It's a lot like the bond rating agencies that lead, in part, to the 2008 housing crisis, getting paid by the people whose homework they were grading. This is an entirely true story, btw. Apparently if you advertise Dran-o to kids on TikTok, you get something north of a $2.00 ROI. Completely ridiculous. In another anecdote, we measure advertising on YouTube. Google would only let us implement changes to our measurement software if they "improved" the software. (Again, I don't mean accuracy. Neither did Google.) How do you solve this? Well, you can start by letting the CFO at the advertiser own the ad measurement responsibility. The CFO actually has incentive to understand if the marketers are just pissing away money. The shareholders do too. Perhaps there's also room for an industry watchdog, paid for by advertising platforms and advertisers, that certified the practices of measurement companies? Anyway, shareholders are getting fleeced. All so the Valley can rake in beaucoup bucks at the expense of shareholders. With the added benefit of a layer of surveillance apparatus suffusing the internet. Fun times! There's actually a lot of scholarship on how advertising's effects are a lot lower than the ad measurement and advertising industry thinks they are. (Go figure that the people who profit from advertising think it works.) Freakonomics Radio episodes 440 and 441 are a good place to start, for those who are interested.

dec0dedab0de 4y ago
Your point about the numbers being fudged makes intuitive sense, and almost feels obvious, however... I definitely remember asking my mom to buy liquid plumber when I was about 13 because I had a slow drain in a bathroom she never used. I only realized that slow=clogged from the commercials I saw.

menotyou 4y ago

> no one wants ads, really, they want search engines with relevant results I actually don't care about ads. I use an ad-blocker because I am concerned about everybody in the industry tries to track and profile me.

tomrod 4y ago
So in your case, ads are a mode of the item that concerns you (tracking). I share your dislike of tracking and profiling.