company that sells ads says it will develop an ad blocker. why not stop selling ads as well? what is the goal?
Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
61–70 of 179 posts
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#62> 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…
Power is typically zero-sum. As Google gains effective monopoly power, Mozilla and others whose interests are more aligned with the public interest lose power. I could go on. Put simply, if nobody stops using other adblockers because of this, then nothing is directly a problem. The problems come when Google uses their power to do things like block adblockers in Chrome (as they already do on Android!) and other ramifi…
> as they already do on Android!
This is exclusionary detailing, wouldn't you say? Chrome on Android doesn't have an extensions platform.
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#63What 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.
This product change is mainly about the majority of people who don't use an adblocker.
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#64The fox is in the henhouse, but he brought along a hammer and some nails and he really really doesn't like coyotes, so it's all good.
Part of the article was a bit confusing, though: "According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it’s calling 'Funding Choices.' The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per page view to use third-party sites that block all advertising. Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge them. Users could then 'white list' particular sites, allowing ads to be shown on them and removing the charge. If users decided to pay to block ads, Google would receive a portion of that payment, sharing it with the publisher."
Third-party sites that block all advertising? I think the author has this confused with third-party ad blockers. And the part where Google does the tracking means that now is certainly the time to switch to Firefox and keep ajax.googleapis.com, google-syndication.com, google-analytics.com, and all the rest of them firmly on the banned list.
At times I almost feel nostalgic for the bad old days of Internet Explorer 6... (But then I remember what IE6 was actually like, and the feeling passes.)
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#65Thinking about it, printing money using basic income might make the demand for ads increase. The economy would be basically based on how much basic income consumers spend.
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#66What 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.
Why wouldn't people willing to install an ad blocker just use Google's and another?
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to say exactly this. Google doesn't sell your personal information. It personalizes the ads it serves you, but that personalization happens in Google, advertisers don't see it. https://www.google.com/settings/ads/
It might be wrongly implying Google is selling the content of your Gmail - but between Google Analytics and stuff like: https://www.google.com/insights/ Google certainly helps tracking users?
Yes it seems that a determined advertiser could find out quite a bit about people who saw its Google ads...
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#68> 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.
Google makes the vast majority of their money off advertising and data
By selling the service of targeting and delivering ads, not by selling personal information.
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#69>According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it’s calling “Funding Choices.” The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per page view to use third-party sites that block all advertising. Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge them. Users could then “white list” particular sites, allowing ads to be shown on them and removing the charge. If users decided to pay to block ads, Google would receive a portion of that payment, sharing it with the publisher.
Pay for use ad-blocking is exactly what I want. Did you hear me? Exactly. I don't want to manage a zillion news subscriptions at $15+ a pop. I don't want to get nagged to turn off my ad blocker.
I want a reasonable amount of money to to spent towards the people making the content that I'm vaguely interested in because other people on Hacker News are interested in it too. I've already solved the problem of content I really care about, I just buy a darned subscription.
This is a huge market opportunity and I'm just absolutely silly with glee that Google finally decided to jump on it. Because only Google has the scale to make something like this work. Finally I'm going to see the end of mob rule and the establishment of law and order in web advertising. Couldn't have happened fast enough for me.
Please please, just charge me for the content I consume. Why did it take the industry so long to figure this out?
Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
#70>According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it’s calling “Funding Choices.” The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per page view to use third-party sites that block all advertising. Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge them. Users could then “white list” particular sites, allowing ads to be shown on them and removing the charge. If users deci…
Google contributor (their implementation of this idea) only kicks in if ad sellers don't outbid you for that slot.
Its a hopelessly google-myopic idea.