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

171–180 of 504 posts

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#171

Post by pdog »

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…

It's far more likely that Chrome's ad-blocking feature will be similar to the implementation of content blockers in Safari (introduced at a WWDC 2015 session)[1][2].

The new model for content blockers in Safari is faster and a lot more memory efficient because they're compiled into byte code. Content blockers are also more secure and better for privacy because they have no knowledge of the browsing that users are doing. The content-blocking rules are only provided by third parties.

Google is probably doing this because it makes their browser faster—not because of some wild conspiracy to show more advertisements.

[1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Ge...

[2]: https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2015/?id=511

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#172

Post by Arizhel »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #142
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

Ad blocking strikes so deeply at the heart of Google's success, it's simply not credible to believe there is no more to the strategy than the simple defense mentioned in the article. To speculate on just one possible strategy: - First order of business, crush Ad Block plus' pay to play business. Possibly just by entering the market with resources, IP, and channel that would overwhelm them. - Continue on this path unt…

While this is a possibility, the wrench in the works is the Firefox browser. How is Google going to get them to play along and prevent 3rd-party blockers like UBlock Origin from working? I don't see it happening.

They can certainly put ABP out of business, which honestly is fine with me. But UO isn't a business AFAIK, it's a Free open-source project. That's like trying to put vim out of business; you just can't, because there's no business there. Google can certainly change Chrome to prevent UO from working, but they can't do the same for Firefox, nor can they really for Chromium (though their actions can make it difficult, but that could also mean that many other non-blocker extensions won't work if they're too restrictive).

Finally, these aren't the only browsers out there. Apple's Safari might also refuse to go along, and even go directly against Google somehow (including their own Google-ad-blocker, or helping UO work on their browser). Apple doesn't live on ads like Google does.

Finally, as for legislation, that doesn't make much sense either. First, I have a hard time seeing any Federal US laws actually succeed that force users to view ads, and even if such a law passed, there's no way to enforce it. How would they? Are websites going to sue users whose browsers don't actually download all their ads? That'll be great for PR. Or are they going to block users who don't download the ads (they're already doing this on some sites). If it gets that bad, it wouldn't be hard for ad-blockers to switch to simply downloading all the ads, and then sending them to /dev/null instead of displaying them.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#173

Post by amygdyl »

greggman wrote: post #154
amygdyl wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ple…

Hi greggman,

I started ad sales using numerical techniques on the turn of the nineties. Our first hurdle was to bat off vexatious law suits brought by agencies, for copyright materials theft every time a major sent us the separations. All digital imposition - the layout of pages in final form to the n-up web offset affines that creates the cut pages in sequence from a running roller fold, indeed could require no manual intervention. (copy dot scanners captured and re digitized the pre stochastic screens of adverts)

But I think you mean addressing the spots, or paginating what goes where.

This is still actually manual for a ad network, if you mean deciding advert a never runs nearer than n pages to advert b, or ad y never runs in section k. Just the scale is inverted. And with it, pricing power, which is almost entirely buy side.

I could easily flip a galley proof of the magazine pages laid out as they will run, in under a minute for all but the bulk ad titles like PCWorld..

That was the scrutiny I meant.

Are there no tools to assist pre screening ad network proposed flows? I imagine, also, offensive adverts rarely have budget for impressions. I bet cutting the bottom 20% would solve most problems...

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#174

Post by debacle »

heeey wrote: post #161
ziikutv wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not consider dropping Ublock any time soon.

That's ok. If this plan works, a few years down the road Ublock will get dropped/disabled for you under some pretense when Google can claim they've got you covered for "ad blocking".

You're thinking far too 1984 when the answer is much more Brave New World - if the ad blocker in Chrome is good enough, people will just stop supporting UBlock.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#175

Post by ocdtrekkie »

sowbug wrote: post #32
krackers wrote: post #3

I suppose Google's own ad network will be unaffected, thereby "encouraging" sites to move to Google's network for a no-block guarantee?

http://allthingsd.com/20120103/after-chrome-ads-flap-google-...

2012 Google and 2017 Google are nearly two completely different companies, ethically.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#177

Post by rosege »

dcow wrote: post #45
oDot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

or some kind of anti-trust eventuates

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#179

Post by CoryG89 »

debacle wrote: post #174
heeey wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ok. If this plan works, a few years down the road Ublock will get dropped/disabled for you under some pretense when Google can claim they've got you covered for "ad blocking".

You're thinking far too 1984 when the answer is much more Brave New World - if the ad blocker in Chrome is good enough, people will just stop supporting UBlock.

No one supports uBlock. Browsers would have to specifically block the extension if they wanted to keep people from using it.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#180

Post by CoryG89 »

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #162
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…

On mobile Chrome does not support extensions while Firefox does. Recently on acquiring a new phone I used Chrome for a few days -- I had entirely forgotten how terrible the user-experience is without UBlock!

I always suspected the reason we never got extensions in mobile Chrome is that they didn't want the ad blockers. I wasn't aware that Firefox mobile started supporting them. Going to give it a try.
Post reply on HN