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

451–460 of 504 posts

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#451

Post by rodovich »

MarkMc wrote: post #440
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…

For you it's 'out of control'. For me it's 'the price I'm happy to pay to get what I want'.

I'm glad you understand what that price is and are happy to pay it. I personally have a hard time evaluating the price because the _whats_ and _hows_ of a site's tracking seldom are disclosed in a clear and concise manner that I can review ad understand before the tracking occurs. And even if it was, that would be a lot of friction to do for every site I might visit.

I find it much easier to control by deciding on a policy up front and letting my browser help me enforce it.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#452

Post by jordigh »

natoliniak wrote: post #204
joe_the_user wrote: post #165

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)

> Yep, we all have to eat, so i make a conscientious effort not to block ads, unless they are abusive

I find this a really weird attitude that I just can't get behind.

"Here, let me give you some money by watching something that will try to convince me to buy something that I wouldn't have otherwise bought. Just doing my civic duty here!"

That's what it sounds like to me. You want to help someone else, so you agree to be allowed to be told to buy something you didn't need or know about until you saw the ad. It's... weird. It's a very strange method to power the economy. Allowing your mind to be molded in the shape the big guy wants it for the sake of the little guy.

I myself just flat out refuse to have my mind manipulated like this. There's gotta be a better way for the little guy to make money.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#453

Post by brettz »

gorhill wrote: post #449
_oadw wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough. I just wish it were true that users were deciding. All my research and data shows that the majority of users don't know how to whitelist a site or even that they have adblock installed. A friend told them to install it or a family member etc. Which is why Google controlling what is acceptable without user input may not be that bad.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#454

Post by etatoby »

TheKarateKid wrote: post #404
etatoby wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should really come up with a community-driven criteria for Acceptable Ads Isn't that what ABP / Eyeo is doing? You may criticize them for the fee they ask of the Ad companies to include / review their ads, but it's not like the fees are unfair or they aren't doing work that needs to be paid somehow. They even set up a non profit to deal with this matter. > or should disable un-vetted/not-whitelisted JavaScript a…

What Eyeo is doing amounts to theft or blackmail: Pay us or have your revenue reduced. They are a venture-funded company, so they are in it for more than the community, and can find other ways to monetize their service.

Regarding fees, only large entities (those with more than 10 million additional ad impressions per month due to participation in the Acceptable Ads initiative) have to pay. For these entities, our licensing fee normally represents 30 percent of the additional revenue created by whitelisting its acceptable ads.

You are right. That fee is anything but fair. I was under the impression that they were operating their program under a non-profit, but it doesn't seem so.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#455

Post by anchpop »

microtonal wrote: post #251
andreyf wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay for YT Red?

Red is only available to a minuscule fraction of the world population, namely United States, Australia, Mexico, New Zealand and South Korea.

I would guess that's where the majority of youtube's users are. Kinda deceptive to use "world population" when that includes places like China where youtube isn't available

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#456

Post by mseebach »

_jal wrote: post #401
mseebach wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for everyone and everything is what will grow their ad business long term, rather than violently shoving as many ads as possible into their users faces as fast as possible. It's also pretty clear that they are capable of pursuing a long term strategy over chasing short-term cash.

> It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for Google FIFY. I have no idea why the belief that "what's good for Google is good for the internet" persists - those days are long past. Google is best understood as a huge surveillance operation with bait services attached. The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by…

I didn't say "what's good for Google is good for the internet", I said, in effect, "what's good for the internet is good for Google".

And please do refrain from fixing my posts for me, I am perfectly capable of expressing my opinions without your assistance.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#457

Post by mseebach »

PaulHoule wrote: post #396
mseebach wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for everyone and everything is what will grow their ad business long term, rather than violently shoving as many ads as possible into their users faces as fast as possible. It's also pretty clear that they are capable of pursuing a long term strategy over chasing short-term cash.

I think it is more about destroying the competition and also that they believe that there will be no antitrust enforcement whatseoever in the Trump Administration.

Yeah, because Google only does business in the US, and there's no political capital to be reaped anywhere in the world from standing up to rich American firms, especially when such standing up can at the same time be construed as standing up to the Trump administration. Also, Google has specifically and most certainly never been slapped around by the European Union for anticompetitive practices, so there's nothing to worry about there.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#458

Post by tannhaeuser »

etatoby wrote: post #284
tannhaeuser wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Not wanting to bash Google, but it's not in their best interest to block Google Ads is it? What'll happen is that Google Ads will be served using some super-sophisticated cloaking setup making AdBlockers ineffective on all but Google Ads. Like https, this will put alternative ad networks out of business. It's not even difficult to do so, by eg. serving pages from a Google-controlled CloudFlare-like proxy ser…

> we should really come up with a community-driven criteria for Acceptable Ads Isn't that what ABP / Eyeo is doing? You may criticize them for the fee they ask of the Ad companies to include / review their ads, but it's not like the fees are unfair or they aren't doing work that needs to be paid somehow. They even set up a non profit to deal with this matter. > or should disable un-vetted/not-whitelisted JavaScript a…

re: https I meant that men-in-the-middle advertising such as by WLAN providers and ISPs is prevented, and rightly so. OTOH, this leads us into monopolism or duopolism which at this point might be even worse. The argument in this context is that whatever action Google does isn't bad per se and absolutely defensible from a security and even privacy PoV, but at the same time is something that helps Google first and foremost. In the same way, Google can present ad-blocking support in Chrome as a pro-consumer measure, when in reality its purpose is to go after the remaining alternative ad network revenue to achieve increasingly difficult growth.

FSF's LibreJS initiative is laudible, and something I'm willing to support with what I'm offering on the web. I found that sites that have content worth reading typically aren't script-heavy and entirely usable without script, or by using either F/OSS JavaScript (including jquery) and "trivial scripts" according to FSFs definition. The notorious exceptions are Google Analytics, ReCaptcha, and maybe Disqus, for which solutions must be found. Google Analytics, and the necessity to make use of it might be a case where Google as a major sponsor of web standards are acting in conflict with a solution based on web standards.

Wrt. ABP my initial gut reaction to paid ABP acceptable ads was extremely negative, but maybe I might reconsider.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#460

Post by rewrew »

ehsankia wrote: post #209
milkytron wrote: post #143

Earlier 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.

The Wall Street Journal employs highly reputable journalists with excellent sources. Basic journalism standards for this would require confirmation from three separate sources before publishing. And it's the WSJ -- they don't publish it on a whim, they publish it because it's news they believe to be true.
Post reply on HN