41–50 of 179 posts
I'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...
I'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...
If this actually results in an internet mostly free of super annoying ads, then I can't get too broken up about that even if it does give Google a major advantage over its competitors. The question, of course, is whether Google can/will abuse this in anti-consumer ways. Some people have said that Google's criteria for "good" ads aren't that great. The article implies that Google can somehow force adblocker users to e…
And that's when you download a different browser...
> 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, browse…
Note a similar FUD argument can be made about Google's own advertising network: "if we unilaterally decide we don't like your ads or your websites we'll cut you off." Similarly for search results. Yet Google's implementation and guidelines are generally seen as reasonable, economically satisfactory, and not stifling innovation.
Also, what would be the point of dropping out of this coalition? The online ads industry is largely self-regulating, there's no federal regulator setting the rules. Instead coalitions like this one are formed which set guidelines and make standards. What point would it serve to pull out of a coalition and subject yourself to the control of your competitors for a one-time show of goodwill at the expense of long-term influence?
Maybe you don't trust self-regulation, and that's fine. Appropriate even, given how often it breaks down. But keep in mind the alternatives are either government regulation or no regulation. The advertising industry is presented with an existential challenge in the form of bad advertising and ad blockers. The closer you look at it, the more you realize this move is actually a pretty good one, all things considered.
I'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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, browse…
Everything we've seen about this program indicates it is implemented as a blacklist of undesirable behavior and not a whitelist of known-good as formats. For your first example, the difference between this being beneficial and problematic comes down to the guidelines in place. Note a similar FUD argument can be made about Google's own advertising network: "if we unilaterally decide we don't like your ads or your webs…
It would remove the obvious conflict of interest. To be clear, I'm talking about dissolving the coalition of advertisers and instead having the group agree to regulation from an outside group.
> But keep in mind the alternatives are either government regulation
and I've stated outright that I'm in favour of breaking up Google over this.
Not just this, but partly.
I 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.
How much should you pay for that endorsement? Normally, you'd pay based on how many people see the ad. That, then incentives lying about how many people saw the ad, or creating fake views with bots. To deal with that, you add in Javascript that checks if the ad is genuinely visible and, try to validate that they aren't a bot, and whatever other fakery they try. Adding a layer on top of that, people generally have a t…
Ads aren't really a problem for me (and I am guessing a lot of others), it's bad/misleading ads like pop-ups, auto-play video ads, etc. I think the idea to block ads that do not follow an established industry standard is definitely a step in the right direction.
Savvy users will continue to use 3rd party ad blockers- no change there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much should you pay for that endorsement? Normally, you'd pay based on how many people see the ad. That, then incentives lying about how many people saw the ad, or creating fake views with bots. To deal with that, you add in Javascript that checks if the ad is genuinely visible and, try to validate that they aren't a bot, and whatever other fakery they try. Adding a layer on top of that, people generally have a t…
Do we really have to track everyone? What ever happened to a flat fee per month to have a static banner in place on a relevant website?
What 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.