Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 504 posts

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#41

Post by slg »

aesthetics1 wrote: post #12

"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…

>I just want to stop the intrusive and dangerous variety

One of the problem is the definition of "intrusive and dangerous" varies wildly from person to person. Ad blockers have generally handled this by blocking everything while giving the ability to whitelist exceptions. I imagine it would be much more difficult to get good user satisfaction by attacking this from the opposite approach.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#42

Post by libria »

oDot wrote: post #29
aesthetics1 wrote: post #12

"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…

I like it too, but isn't Google in a conflict of interest here?

The opposite, I would say. Google has strict guidelines for ad creative content and polices its ads as well; they're almost certainly above their own bar. So this is essentially threatening to block everyone else, or at least those behaving poorly.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#43

Post by pookeh »

Hmm...

Step 1. Surprise the world with better ad blocking tech than what currently exists.

Step 2. When trust in tech is established, start blocking ads from other ad networks by calling them foul. Do this slowly so it's not obvious.

Step 3. Wait for customers of other ad networks to notice their ads are not effective.

Step 4. Steal customers...Profit.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#44

Post by crowbahr »

kenshaw wrote: post #4

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.

If they try they'll see a lot of people move to Firefox. Like I'm game with Google's ideas here honestly and I'd be willing to try it but I would drop it like it's hot if it disables other blockers.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#45

Post by dcow »

oDot wrote: post #29
aesthetics1 wrote: post #12

"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…

I like it too, but isn't Google in a conflict of interest here?

No because all of their ads will meet standards. I wouldn't be surprised if a competing lower-quality ad agency sues Google over this.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#46

Post by gerdesj »

Judging by the comments before this one, very few actually read the article - soooo /.

My take: Ad wrangler attempts to quash competition by leveraging it's dominant browser share.

How on earth does an ad slinger take the moral high ground wrt ad intrusiveness or whatever is currently considered naughty by targets of ads?

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#48

Post by aethr »

libria wrote: post #42
oDot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it too, but isn't Google in a conflict of interest here?

The opposite, I would say. Google has strict guidelines for ad creative content and polices its ads as well; they're almost certainly above their own bar. So this is essentially threatening to block everyone else, or at least those behaving poorly.

That is the conflict of interest. It's hard to see how this isn't going to strengthen their position in the ad serving market. Google being able to define where the bar for "badly behaving" is set means that only their competitors will be hurt by this.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#49

Post by artursapek »

libria wrote: post #42
oDot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it too, but isn't Google in a conflict of interest here?

The opposite, I would say. Google has strict guidelines for ad creative content and polices its ads as well; they're almost certainly above their own bar. So this is essentially threatening to block everyone else, or at least those behaving poorly.

> So this is essentially threatening to block everyone else

I think this is what he meant by conflict of interest

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#50

Post by kristianc »

slg wrote: post #41
aesthetics1 wrote: post #12

"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…

>I just want to stop the intrusive and dangerous variety One of the problem is the definition of "intrusive and dangerous" varies wildly from person to person. Ad blockers have generally handled this by blocking everything while giving the ability to whitelist exceptions. I imagine it would be much more difficult to get good user satisfaction by attacking this from the opposite approach.

> I imagine it would be much more difficult to get good user satisfaction by attacking this from the opposite approach.

Except if you're Google and have near-infinite ML resources at your disposal and 50% of the browser market. An algo could be trained by a thumbs up / thumbs down to spot good and bad ads / vendors within six months.

Post reply on HN