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

331–340 of 504 posts

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#331

Post by samdoidge »

batuhanw wrote: post #265
kesor wrote: post #198

Earlier 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…

This sounds like conspiracy. They can not block certain companies keep their ads unblocked. They will/should block certain type of ads, popups redirects malwares etc. Also it is easier to block google ads with 3rd party. Since ridiculous ads will be blocked natively, performance will be better I think.

> They can not block certain companies keep their ads unblocked.

Any technical reason why they couldn't?

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#332

Post by ucho »

userbinator wrote: post #105
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…

The only issue with that is HTTPS, which Privoxy currently can't handle ( https://www.privoxy.org/faq/misc.html ) and will become even more of a problem with the current "encrypt everything" trend. Certificate pinning and all the other stuff aimed at making TLS harder to MITM also gets in the way of effective adblocking proxies. The only one I know of which can MITM SSL on Windows is Proxomitron, and you still have t…

Lucky for us (in this case) certificate pinning is considered to risky to actually deploy in production, it is to easy to make the page completely unacceptable with single mistake.

Also it looks like Chrome actually ignores pinning for proxies as a feature: http://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/security-faq#...

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#333

Post by literallycancer »

reitanqild wrote: post #280
petre wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pets make you more likely to buy poor quality products that you don't need or want?

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#334

Post by literallycancer »

thegayngler wrote: post #170
nikkwong wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would end users opt for alternative browsers in this case? For end users this situation is a win: no more 'intrusive' ads. It only ends up being a loss for competing advertising platforms and possibly advertisers.

I would like sites to remain free to use. Ads help support free to use sites or portions of sites.

Or you could directly support the sites you like with the money you now waste on sub-optimal purchases caused by ads.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#335

Post by damandloi »

Chrome has already won the war of browsers however the new ones (Brave, Vivaldi, UC) are jostling their way with inbuilt ad blockers.

Now, it might seem that Google wants to maintain an edge over these with the new ad-blocking feature but one can tell that it will only block ads outside Google network.

The way I see it as a bigger bet on cannibalizing itself because if Google does not then somebody else will.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#336

Post by onion2k »

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…

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.

I think that guess is wrong. I think Google will block their own ads. There are a few reasons why;

1. They're not stupid. The amount of trust lost in a move like that would be immense. It wouldn't be worthwhile.

2. They don't need to. They just need to make it switched off by default and 90% of users won't ever see it or use it. Only people who are interested will seek it out, and those people are already seeking ad-blocking extensions.

3. Other browsers are implementing it. Google need to include it to stop users who are interested in that feature switching browser.

4. Google need data. They get value from tracking people even if they're not seeing adverts. By blocking the ads specifically, even their own adverts, they still get to track users and derive value from that data. Other ad blocking technology will also block Google's tracking mechanisms, and they really don't want that to happen.

5. Given the fact they have a effective monopoly on adverts on the main web the lost revenue from blocked ads will have a bigger impact on their competitors than them. Google can afford to lose far more ad impressions than the next, much smaller network. They can block their own ads and still drive their competitors out of business. That said, I don't think Google are evil enough to do that. I'm just saying they don't need to let their own ads through if the plan is to kill off the competition.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#337

Post by rmc »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #77
aethr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google isn't defining anything unilaterally - the Coalition for Better Ads is. https://www.betterads.org/standards/

That's an industry body from big advertisers, like Google. I'm pretty sure "Don't store user data" isn't included in that "standard"

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#338

Post by amelius »

lucasmullens wrote: post #28
axtscz wrote: post #2

My guess is that Google ads would be whitelisted?

They're following a standard: https://www.betterads.org/standards/ Seems like a safe bet they wouldn't serve ads that would get blocked.

That's a silly website. They only research different forms of ads, but they have (conveniently?) forgotten about user tracking.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#339

Post by literallycancer »

chc wrote: post #292
knob wrote: post #167

Honorable mention goes to Adnauseam ( https://adnauseam.io/ ). It is an extension for Firefox and Chrome, which clicks on almost every ad. Hopefully, costing advertisers money. The interesting part is: Google removed Adnauseum from their Chrome Extensions. If you anyway install it, every Chrome restart requires that you re-enable the extension. I like the extension... the advertisers are costing me money by consuming…

There's a pretty significant difference there, though. They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at, while you're costing them money just to be malicious. If you don't want to look at the content, just don't. If you want to look at the content but don't want to see ads, use an ad blocker. Punishing them for trying to stay afloat while giving you s…

You can rationalize it however you want, but there's only two possibilities.

1. People like you, who say "but I can just ignore ads" are right, and ad companies are about to go out of the business.

2. People who are convinced that ads don't affect them are wrong.

It doesn't seem like ad companies are struggling to me? So the logical conclusion is that ignoring ads doesn't work.

Now on the retaliation. Anyone trying to expose me to ads is aggressively trying to compromise my decision making process. Since they started, I see nothing wrong with defending myself by increasing their costs.

>They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at

The real cost is that your decisions are compromised.

Post reply on HN