Maybe time to stop using and recommending Chrome? I heard of this browser called "Firefox" which isn't developed by an advertising company.
Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
271–280 of 504 posts
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "ad blocker" companies will go out of business? ARE YOU INSANE?! Google is a frigging AD MONOPOLY ... its their major business for crying out loud. And the same company that controls a HUGE portion of all the Internet Ad business is creating an "Ad Blocker". And this doesn't ring any bells anywhere? No friend, they are not trying to put "ad blocker" companies out of business. They are trying to put "competing int…
They can't be trying to do that, because it would be blatantly anti-competitive, as their lawyers would tell them. They might let google ads through, but if so they will let through other ad companies as well. The EU would have some choice words for them if they didn't.
Sure they can. Do first, answer questions later.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#273"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 this approach. It punishes site owners for running malicious or badly-behaved ads.
Someone forgets that for a few days YouTube was serving malware in their ads.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#274Earlier 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…
I'm not sure why everyone in this thread is just assuming this is true. The only source the article provides is "according to people familiar with the company’s plans". And it's from the WSJ... the same people that went behind Google's back and went to their advertisers trying to ruin their reputation. I don't know, I feel like this is another attempt by them to stir shit.
Surely Google will next come out with a "Fake News" filter for browsers that will just block wsj.com for all Chrome users.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are not trying to put "ad blocker" companies out of business. They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business. This. Internet is creating massive monopolies that are gathering an immense power that allow them to kill any other company that tries to compete with them. It's starting to be scary...
On one hand, I doubt Google would be so bold, considering the amount of attention they are currently getting from the European Commissioner of Competition. If Marine le Pen wins on the other hand...
The political pendulum swings both ways.
I look forward to seeing what happens to any businesses that get too greedy and disregard what happens when the pendulum swings left again.
I wonder what would be happening now if we had a wave of left-wing populists taking office instead.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
>where other blockers by default can easily block all Google ads Adblock Plus, the most popular adblocker, does not block Google ads by default, because they are considered non-intrusive.
As noted in the article, Google pays Adblock Plus an undisclosed amount of money to be considered non-intrusive. Adblock Plus is clearly not a neutral evaluator here.
Adblock Plus is pretty open about it. You can disable the option easily. And Google ads are, in fact, relatively non intrusive. I don't see the problem.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#277My god, to get quality journalism it would be so strange if the death of online ads brought some semblance of Print back again.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#278I guess it makes sense for them as they can block annoying ads but leave Google ads up there.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#279Earlier 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.
I think you are severely misunderstanding the situation. Google can do whatever they want. They've already demonstrated that they have no problem installing things on your computer that you never would have otherwise agreed to. That, and they don't take no for an answer with updates.
Do they? I just downgraded Chrome for Android to 56, because the latest one would crash when playing live video streams. Granted, Play Store didn't have that option, so I had to download the APK from a third-party site and disable automatic updates for it, but nothing prevented me from doing either thing.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Rats have to eat too. That doesn't mean I should feed them and keep them around the house.
No, but if you keep them as pets you should feed them?
Not saying ad blockers are bad -I use them- just that your analogy breaks down quickly.