I had to do a double-take when I read the title, forget about the article. _Google_ developing an Ad Blocker? Ha! I'd never use it.
Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
31–40 of 179 posts
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#32I still dont understand why simple endorsments dont work for some sites. Just put a text banner somewhere prominent that says "thanks bobs burgers for being our sponsor" there is no way ad blockers could pick that text out of all the other text and block it. And there is no reason anyone would want to block it anyway.
Some do. It has a host of disadvantages.
1) not trackable by client for pvs 2) not easily rotated, or if so requires home grown ad server or integration with web app
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#33> Web users will quickly recognize their only options: pay to use the internet, or uninstall the ad blockers and surf the web for free. Or they could disable Chrome ad blocking and install their ad blocker of choice. If I'm reading this correctly then no portion of the user population is hurt by this. Power with religious objections to advertising are free to continue using them. Typical users who don't care don't ha…
> But doesn't it hurt the advertisers? That's not a given either
Easy scenario, I come up with a new ad style that works pretty well (worth loads). Google (et al) say no, that violates some standard we set, blocked. They just cost me a bunch of money.
> Google is in a unique place to tackle the problem of poor advertising by filtering truly bad experiences
By leveraging a leading (at least) position in search, browsers, and advertising.
If they want to drop out completely from their "Coalition for Better Ads", make it a consumer group instead, then maybe I'll trust them on this. Right now this is the type of move that really makes me agree with the author, Alphabet should be broken up.
I also wonder if they are going to punish ads that look like page content (google search) or before youtube videos.
I think you could make the case that the current idea actually makes it pretty much impossible not to screw over new companies in favour of the entrenched group (google, facebook, etc...). If you are going to be restricted to the ads google already does extremely well, why wouldn't you just go with Google?
oh, and we have the issue of Android. The vast majority of mobile users just use the browser already on the phone. That would be chrome, which will have only the ad blocker provided by Google unless they change things.
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#34> Web users will quickly recognize their only options: pay to use the internet, or uninstall the ad blockers and surf the web for free. Or they could disable Chrome ad blocking and install their ad blocker of choice. If I'm reading this correctly then no portion of the user population is hurt by this. Power with religious objections to advertising are free to continue using them. Typical users who don't care don't ha…
I think that you are too naive and part of the problem why the Google has become so dominant. I actually installed an ad-blocker because I could not stand video ads (I would call it TV-cation of the Internet) and that was the easiest way to eliminate them. You argue that people can install another browser and use an ad-blocker with that. This is true for now (given reasonably motivated and knowledgeable users), but G…
I'm not disagreeing that this is possible, but I don't think jumping straight to such a nightmare scenario really does any good. The reason being is that they just don't go that far and it's suddenly seems okay in comparison to what "could" happen.
More realistically, I think Google hurts other ad blockers and expands their oligarchic position in the ads space (especially on mobile).
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#35> Web users will quickly recognize their only options: pay to use the internet, or uninstall the ad blockers and surf the web for free. Or they could disable Chrome ad blocking and install their ad blocker of choice. If I'm reading this correctly then no portion of the user population is hurt by this. Power with religious objections to advertising are free to continue using them. Typical users who don't care don't ha…
If Google and Facebook use this policy to establish an oligopoly (or cement their existing one), and that allows Google and Facebook to raise advertising prices above equilibrium pricing, then that squeezes companies that wish to advertise with costs that are shifted onto consumers. Additionally, having a Google/Facebook oligopoly hurts incumbents when Google uses its overwhelming advertising market power to give its…
> that allows Google and Facebook to raise advertising prices above equilibrium pricing
Maybe, but do they need to do that or do they just sit there and reap the profits of being an ever expanding proportion of the market (which is now thriving again because they killed other ad blockers). Regulators will just ignore them that way.
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#36> Google, a data mining and extraction company that sells personal information to advertisers The content in this article, is, for the most part, good content. What annoys me is that The Intercept seems fit to act like a heroic good guy insofar as being completely biased against Google from start to finish in what could have been a mostly informational article. An opening lead like this serves no purpose other than m…
The lead is not only factual, but greatly strengthens the points made within. Google makes the vast majority of their money off advertising and data, they are taking steps that will help them to get an even stronger hold on that market with high potential to be extremely anti-competitive.
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Intercept has never been a "just the facts" journal: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/anti-google-rese... They are more of a think-tank or advocacy group than a newspaper.
That article is about the Google Transparency Project, which is a separate organization from The Intercept. Think of GTP as being a PR firm and The Intercept as being a publication. PR firms work to place sources & articles with publications that they feel will be friendly to their message, but the publication itself is a separate organization that reports on many topics besides what the PR firm wants.
So as you mentioned, The Intercept is "friendly to" anti-Google messaging, which is exactly what I'm saying.
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#38"What ads would get blocked? The ones not sold by Google, for the most part." That is hilarious. Talk about self-serving. How can they do this with a straight face? I guess "Don't be evil" doesn't imply "Don't be slimy".
Well, to be fair, it seemed to me from the release announcement that they were blocking ads on webpages where the publisher set their pages up for a frustrating experience (pop-up display ads, auto play video ads), irrelevant of which ad systems were serving the ads on the pages. They aren't blocking ads from certain ad systems or advertisers. In theory this means the ad blocker shouldn't treat any ad system, includi…
Who's to say, though, that the ads Chrome is going to block are any more frustrating than Google ads?
The ads on YouTube are extremely frustrating.
And, the ads on a search results page aren't exactly frustrating, but they do seem very deliberately designed to not look like ads.
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#39What ads would get blocked? The ones not sold by Google, for the most part. I can see it coming - "Host on AMP, and your ads will get through". "Use Google Ads, and your ads will get through." "Pay dues to the Acceptable Ad Consortium, and your ads will get through." Look what happened with TrustE and their ratings. It started out as a good idea, and ended up as a cover for scumbags. Today, a TrustE seal has negative…
I'm a little more hopeful. They have a clear incentive to keep really bad ads off their own services because if they don't a lot of people will just reinstall another ad blocker. If I didn't have to deal with unmutable autoplaying video ads or ads spouting malware I'd be more willing to browse with a limited ad blocker.
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#40I'm curious to see how Google reacts when Brendan Eich's new browser project gets traction....
"Brave Browser Will Reward Users with Ethereum-Based Tokens for Switching on Ads":
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/brave-announces-blockchain-d...