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

441–450 of 504 posts

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#441

Post by ajnin »

ouid wrote: post #384
tyingq wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also doesn't hurt that Google will be able to control what is considered an "ad" and what isn't. Are Google product listings ads? Google flight results? Featured destinations?

If you request it, it's not an ad. I think that's a pretty reasonable line to draw.

That definition would make sense only if there was a way to explicitly tell that you request ads or promoted content of some sort, most of the time you don't, you type a search query in Google's text box or click on a link to some web page, that's all. The extra content gets bundled and is loaded without asking.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#442

Post by ajnin »

nashashmi wrote: post #402
tyingq wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also doesn't hurt that Google will be able to control what is considered an "ad" and what isn't. Are Google product listings ads? Google flight results? Featured destinations?

Interesting Question. My Take: Redefine what ad means for web browsing, e.g. any information coming from a third party like iframes. All other types of information, paid or not paid, is part of the web page and not worth blocking.

It's not an easy problem, as the war being waged for many years now I think demonstrates. A too simple definition will have too many exceptions: a newspaper that includes an article from another reputable news site, ad? A paid piece extolling the virtues of product X, posing as a fake article, not an ad?

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#443

Post by sp332 »

on_and_off wrote: post #372
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 have no share in Google but I have been waiting for such an ad blocker for years : I don't want to block all ads I want an ad blocker that protects me from popunder (is there any point to those ?) popups, autoplay videos, ad walls and other shitty ads that make my experience awful. I don't want an adblocker that blocks everything by default and where I have to manually white list all the sites I consult regularly.…

You can do this with any of the popular adblockers (including uBlock Origin) that work with filter lists. They come with a default set of lists, but you can disable those and only subscribe to lists that block annoyances, malware, or whatever else you want.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#444

Post by jobu »

_oadw wrote: post #437
gorhill wrote: post #420

Ads are a subset of a larger issue: the out of control data mining and tracking[1]. Focusing only on whether an ad is visually pleasant or not does not address the larger issue -- which larger issue is the foremost reason people should install a content blocker, to get back in the control seat of their user agent . [1] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMB…

If we stop out of control tracking and the ads model, how do we stop all content from going behind a paywall? Asking because at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free but uBlock Origin seems to go for a scorched earth approach that doesn't seem sustainable.

The problem is that so many sites have absolutely no shame about how many or what kind of ads they will jam into a page. LA Times is a great example - https://nelsonslog.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/la-times-and-ads...

If a site is willing to treat their consumers that badly then fuck them. I have no respect and will not feel bad about using an ad blocker there.

On the flip side, a number of sites have started asking to turn off ad blockers (e.g. Wired), and if it's a site I visit frequently I'm willing to give it a try. If the page is filled with video ads or blinky shit, the ad blocker gets turned on again.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#445

Post by gcb0 »

bmurphy1976 wrote: post #433
jaipilot747 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Firefox on Android I've been using JavaScript Toggle Enabled [1] for a while. Does what it says on the tin. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/toggle-javasc...

I personally find Firefox way too janky to use on my mobile device. It's getting better but still needs some time in the oven. Brave is a Chrome fork so for those of us who prefer Chrome it's a better option (for now anyway).

use firefox with the noScript (cross fingers to have uMatrix on mobile soon!)

then use your 10 top websites with whitelisted javascript access on firefox mobile, and full javascript on chrome and came back to say which one was faster.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#446

Post by Arizhel »

dvdhsu wrote: post #191
Arizhel wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You "kill" vim by preinstalling a friendly text editor by default, like TextEdit or Notepad. Many of my technical friends (myself included) use vim, but vim will never be used by everybody, everywhere. When most people first get a new computer and want to edit text, they use TextEdit instead of vim. The end game of ad blocking is that everybody installs one. That would be devastating to Google. Instead, they would ra…

>You "kill" vim by preinstalling a friendly text editor by default, like TextEdit or Notepad. Many of my technical friends (myself included) use vim, but vim will never be used by everybody, everywhere. When most people first get a new computer and want to edit text, they use TextEdit instead of vim.

This is just plain wrong. You're not understanding the meaning of "kill": that means that it's dead, gone, unable to be used.

Many, many people (millions?) use vim every day. I do, and others I know do too. People who use vim don't care about what editors other people use; it's just as irrelevant as what cars other people drive. I can go buy a Honda, a Tesla, or some 50-year-old antique, and drive it if I want, legally. Other people buying Fords has no effect on that. No one cares about everyone, everywhere using vim, only that it's available and it works. That's not changing, and there's no indication it will ever change.

>The end game of ad blocking is that everybody installs one.

No, because there are technical ways of getting around them. Look at all the sites that have anti-ad-blockers installed, and force you to turn off your ad-blocker to see the site. Of course, the ad-blockers have been working on ways of defeating those, so it's an arms race.

>If theirs is the default adblocker even on just Chrome, they'll have substantial market share. Most people won't bother installing a browser extension if it the default is good enough, just like how most people don't use vim if TextEdit is good enough.

Who cares about "most people"? I don't. My whole assertion is: how will they prevent other blockers, like UBlock Origin, from being used? If they're not going to bother, then great, but that's not what the OP claimed: he claimed they'd find ways of actively preventing 3rd-party blockers from being used, either technically or legislatively.

>Google is preventing that from destroying them by shipping their own as a default instead.

Wrong. Google isn't preventing anything, as long as they don't actively prevent you from installing a 3rd-party blocker. The message I replied to alleged that this would happen.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#447

Post by Arizhel »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #235
Arizhel wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Legislation has to make sense? 1) It's illegal to sell cars from Telsa in many states because...I can't even stand to repeat it. 2) It's illegal to give your child pot, even when it's a pharmaceutical grade product shown to be the only cure for her epileptic seizures, and even if done with 100% physician oversight. I would so enjoy a morality debate with a congressman in a state choosing to stand by and do nothing wh…

What you're missing is that those laws are entirely feasible to enforce without having the government snooping on your computer.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#448

Post by Arizhel »

NoGravitas wrote: post #379
Arizhel wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'd like to agree with you, but Firefox has already buckled under to support DRM, so I don't know how much you can count on them to be a bulwark against industry pressure.

They likely buckled under largely because the users wanted to be able to watch Netflix, and there was no way that Mozilla was going to convince Netflix to adopt a different solution. So they had a choice of either being the 1 browser that doesn't work with Netflix (and other streaming services like that), or joining the crowd. Most users don't care about DRM for things like Netflix; if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. No one's forcing you to subscribe to Netflix, and it's not representative of the rest of the web. (It is totally unlike, for instance, sites like this, or news sites with articles, or blogs, etc.) It was a pragmatic choice: either work with popular sites that people like, or become irrelevant because of some extremists. Those chose to remain relevant.

Ad-blocking is not the same. Ad-blocking doesn't prevent you from seeing most sites (and for those that it does, you can selectively turn off the ad-blocker; you don't have to ditch your browser). What incentive would Firefox have to prevent people from installing an ad-blocker? If they did that, they'd lose whatever relevance they still had, because people would just switch to Chrome.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#449

Post by gorhill »

_oadw wrote: post #437
gorhill wrote: post #420

Ads are a subset of a larger issue: the out of control data mining and tracking[1]. Focusing only on whether an ad is visually pleasant or not does not address the larger issue -- which larger issue is the foremost reason people should install a content blocker, to get back in the control seat of their user agent . [1] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMB…

If we stop out of control tracking and the ads model, how do we stop all content from going behind a paywall? Asking because at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free but uBlock Origin seems to go for a scorched earth approach that doesn't seem sustainable.

> at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free

All blockers allow you to whitelist whatever site you want -- if allowing a site to fund itself through advertising is fine with you. I personally prefer the "user decides" approach than the "yet another 3rd-party decides" approach when it comes to whitelisting.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#450

Post by sounds »

Qub3d wrote: post #422
gorhill wrote: post #420

Ads are a subset of a larger issue: the out of control data mining and tracking[1]. Focusing only on whether an ad is visually pleasant or not does not address the larger issue -- which larger issue is the foremost reason people should install a content blocker, to get back in the control seat of their user agent . [1] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMB…

BTW, this person is the creator of Ublock Origin.

To Grandparent Poster: (gorhill)

Thank you for creating Ublock Origin! :)

Post reply on HN