11–20 of 504 posts
I suppose Google's own ad network will be unaffected, thereby "encouraging" sites to move to Google's network for a no-block guarantee?
If Google is really interested in ensuring good user experiences, they should work with the EFF to set up a fund of some kind to support this work, and then have EFF manage it.
I like this approach. It punishes site owners for running malicious or badly-behaved ads. I think this is a step forward. I hate blocking ads across the board - I just want to stop the intrusive and dangerous variety. I can tolerate the rest.
Who is clicking on these ads, anyway? I've never understood how this adds up to profit (for the advertisers).
How is it not a massive legal problem to have an ad company supplying the ad blocker, and deciding what gets blocked?
As someone who uses ublock origin and has been blocking ads for many years, I will consider turning it off if this is effective. My problem is not with ads themselves, it's with terrible ads.
So I created a minimal blocklist for the worst clickbait (mostly Outbrain and Taboola). The list is compatible with uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus.
My cynical side can't help but think they will do this first, then later disable uBlock / other ad blockers (or the APIs they rely on) and claim that "we can do it better." I can't imagine that this isn't a violation of some kind of law (RICO, antitrust, or otherwise), but I don't imagine this would ever be prosecuted.
I pretty much use Firefox for everything anyway, except for Google Apps.
Edit: This actually pushed me back to Firefox after using chromium for years.
"In one possible application Google is considering, it may choose to block all advertising that appears on sites with offending ads, instead of the individual offending ads themselves. In other words, site owners may be required to ensure all of their ads meet the standards, or could see all advertising across their sites blocked in Chrome." I like this approach. It punishes site owners for running malicious or badly…