Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser • Hacker News Board

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#461

Post by ziikutv » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

Spoom wrote: post #398

ziikutv wrote: post #195

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.

I can say from experience that there are plugins which Chrome actively removes even if installed this way.

I think if it is an unpacked one, it does as it assumes you don't want it all the time. Not sure why it does that if dev mode is on.

Have you tried Packing them? I have yet to experience this.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#462

Post by MarkMc » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 6:48 PM UTC

rodovich wrote: post #451

MarkMc wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with that approach is that you are going against the wishes of the person who produced the website. To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. If I don't agree to the terms of use for a website I simply won't use it.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#463

Post by Pica_soO » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 7:02 PM UTC

Sometimes just being able to do a thing, distorts the whole playing field. Actually, just having this red button, will make google adds-business untouchable for any serious competition. One nuke atop a rocket makes your country s borders safer then any tank army ever could. And this is what this is. A nuke, who even by just lying there in the ground, doing near nothing, fortifies the walls of this empire.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#464

Post by mike-cardwell » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 7:14 PM UTC

pluma wrote: post #308

mike-cardwell wrote: post #271

Maybe time to stop using and recommending Chrome? I heard of this browser called "Firefox" which isn't developed by an advertising company.

As a web developer you can take my Chrom(e|ium) from my cold dead hands. I tried out Firefox for a week this year and the experience didn't come anywhere close to that of using Chrome, not only for development but also as a user. Heck, even Electrolysis is still a mess with half the extensions still blocking it.

As a web developer who would prefer that the entire point of the web doesn't degenerate into being a portal for serving up ads, I'll stick to browsers not built by ad companies.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#465

Post by drdeca » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 7:25 PM UTC

corobo wrote: post #387

drdeca wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Project wonderful ads are a competitor to Google ads, and are, imo, vastly superior to some sorta of ads which I believe (?) are Google ads.

I think the problem Project Wonderful has is that they suffer from poor quality ads (no big company uses them) and poor quality publishers (no big numbers see them) In my mind they're the "I can't afford Adsense" ad company, their website interface feeds into that too.

Really? To me they read as ads that are more concerned with keeping the interests of the users of the website in mind.

Also, the pricing system seems quite nice, a continuous second-price auction.

It all seems very "fair".

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#466

Post by phasmantistes » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 7:54 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #390

atsaloli wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Reader was a fantastically useful product for me. Not "crappy" at all.

That's the point parent is making: the Reader team probably wouldn't have opted for shutting down, and they would have been right.

The reader team didn't exist (and hadn't for years) at the time the decision was made to shut it down.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#467

Post by pc2g4d » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 7:59 PM UTC

CoryG89 wrote: post #180

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #162

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.

Firefox is my preferred mobile browser for numerous reasons. I hope it's a good experience for you.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#468

Post by undersuit » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 8:15 PM UTC

MarkMc wrote: post #462

rodovich wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with that approach is that you are going against the wishes of the person who produced the website. To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. If I don't agree to the terms of use for a website I simply won't use it.

>the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed.

The creator can have input, they have no say in a public environment.

>To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty.

The permission has already been granted. If it's on the web I can download it and use it for whatever dirty personal uses I can imagine.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#469

Post by Arizhel » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:08 PM UTC

firebones wrote: post #194

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…

> 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. As power and money become more centralized in fewer hands, the ability to abuse DRM and standards, and to coerce partners and content providers into falling in line, becomes cheaper. Google declares legal…

If Firefox joined in in preventing 3rd-party ad-blockers, they'd lose what few users they still have left. The whole point of using Firefox is that it isn't corporate-controlled, and is the FOSS alternative that gives you more freedom. Take away the freedom, and you take away the primary reason to even use the browser; might as well just use Chrome at that point.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#470

Post by rodovich » Thu, Apr 20, 2017, 9:29 PM UTC

MarkMc wrote: post #462

rodovich wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with that approach is that you are going against the wishes of the person who produced the website. To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. If I don't agree to the terms of use for a website I simply won't use it.

> To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty.

I agree. That's why I want a say in how my data is consumed.