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

151–160 of 504 posts

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#151

Post by zeure »

milkytron wrote: post #143
TechRemarker wrote: post #140

At first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would incredibly increase the number of ads blocked. My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use…

I would love to hear/read the dialogue that occurred when the first person pitched this idea at Google. > Also since people wouldn't use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely. I'm sure a few might, and it'll likely discourage others from entering the market as well. But I do think that open source alternatives would live on and continue to be used if your guess is correct. And…

Ublock Origin is extremely popular and it's open source model keeps it from playing favorites with some "acceptable" ads.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#153

Post by ziikutv »

zeure wrote: post #151
milkytron wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to hear/read the dialogue that occurred when the first person pitched this idea at Google. > Also since people wouldn't use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely. I'm sure a few might, and it'll likely discourage others from entering the market as well. But I do think that open source alternatives would live on and continue to be used if your guess is correct. And…

Ublock Origin is extremely popular and it's open source model keeps it from playing favorites with some "acceptable" ads.

I do not consider dropping Ublock any time soon.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#154

Post by greggman »

amygdyl wrote: post #139
whyleyc wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be laudable to try and lead an "industry-wide" effort to clean up ads but it stinks of hypocrisy when Google repeatedly allows all shades of garbage to permeate its' own Adsense network. We talked about this only a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14094083

I work tangentially to adtech, started with publishing when a xacto knife and bromides might be a handy skill still... I still cannot wrap my head around publishers apparently disinterested in manually clearing ad copy for press approval. Can anyone delineate a non obvious history to this complete laissez faire?

the ny times maybe has the staff to do that (or used to). Joe's blog does not.

back in print media each ad had to be placed by hand. it also had the aquired though manual labor. those things seriously limited the number of people publishing since the majority of your time was spent not making content for your zine but instead chasing down ads.

the internet changed that. here's a spot on my page . fill it with ads please. make those ads geographically specific and or user specific . write me a check for $$$.

it seems pretty obvious that history. if I decided the put ads on my sites I certainly would not have the time to find relevant ads for the world or even just my country. that's not something I want to deal with.

that said, if there was a good ad company that currated their ads well, did not share info with 3rd parties and track users I'd certainly consider signing up to that over others

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#155

Post by derefr »

gcb0 wrote: post #103
derefr wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's really no way to disable all ad-blocking in a browser, even if the browser-vendor wanted desperately to do so, because—whether ad-stripping browser extensions exist or not—ad-stripping HTTP proxies (e.g. Privoxy) will always exist. And if you think users couldn't handle using one of those, there's nothing stopping someone from making an e.g. "Privoxy configurator + blocklist updater" browser extension that ju…

Of course there is. They can make it so annoying that the ads doesn't look that bad. They own the browser. They can make it so bad that even flash ads will look like a good alternative to all the work required.

All what work required? Proxying is an OS-level concern, not a browser-level concern. You set it up in your OS's control panel. The browser doesn't get to be a part of that workflow, so it can't make it annoying.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#159

Post by username223 »

rasz wrote: post #102
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.

Apparently Google does not allow Chrome extensions that let you download YouTube videos, seems like a nice precedence. Looking at popularvideo downloaders gets you things like Video Downloader professional: "Caution: The download of YouTube videos to hard drive is locked because of restrictions of the Chrome Store."

Fortunately, we have `youtube-dl` and keepvid.com to combat this crap.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#160

Post by dorianm »

> According to those standards, ad formats such as pop-ups, auto-playing video ads with sound and “prestitial” ads with countdown timers are deemed to be “beneath a threshold of consumer acceptability.”

Seems reasonable considering Chromium goal:

> Chromium is an open-source browser project that aims to build a safer, faster, and more stable way for all Internet users to experience the web.

https://www.chromium.org/Home

Post reply on HN