221–230 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
* Download Ublock zip * Enable Developer Options * Add Ublock package zip * Enable in Incognito as well TL;DR: Them removing it would be a dick move, but not end of the world. We can still install any packages we want.
You can also use other web browsers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Except it's your device, you can choose to block ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 doi…
You're being downvoted, but I'd actually agree. My guess is this idea originated from the Chrome team in an effort to improve the browsing experience. Google rarely makes unilateral decisions from the top down to product teams. They mostly operate independently.
Apart from shutting them down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love a blocker that just stopped pop-up and display adds. They make a lot of sites literally unusable. I don't mind ordinary display adds, I even like them in the sense that I like a web model that's sustainable.
Yep, we all have to eat, so i make a conscientious effort not to block ads, unless they are abusive (in particular autoplay and popups). To make most commercial websites usable, I simply disabled Autoplay in FF which silenced the most abusive screaming video ads and made surfing the web pleasant again. (about:config and set media.autoplay.enabled;false)
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 can't imagine this wouldn't lead to one hell of an antitrust lawsuit...
So where are the ad networks that offer such ad-type?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, beca…
I can only hope they are also developing a micropayment system to allow easy payment for web content. This shouldn't be too hard - they have a billing system (Google Play) already