Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 179 posts

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#101

Post by a_imho »

Kenji wrote: post #9

Google's bold move only works this well because other browser developers like Mozilla (or even OS developers) were too hesitant to ship ad-blocking by default. Sad, a missed opportunity. I've said this a long time ago. It's unfortunate that Google does the first step when it really could have been one of the last if browser developers acted properly. Ad blocking is a more or less solved problem and could have been fi…

There is a serious chance of backfire though. Calling it adblocking normalizes it across all the users. Once the genie is out, shipping a defective adblocker makes for a inferior product.

I think the opportunity window is still open, and can't for the life of me understand why Mozilla is not doing the right thing.

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#102

Post by RickS »

deprave wrote: post #97
dragonwriter wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have that backwards; the move was to allow higher risk ventures to go forward with the chance of visible failure without harming Google's brand reputation which, contrary to your description, is actually quite strong.

The premise that visible business failure harms brands is false. It's your opinion and it sounds like it makes sense, but it's not supported by any data.

> The premise that visible business failure harms brands is false.

Given that many forms of visible business failure literally cause brands to cease to exist, it seems indisputable that at least some of the time they're harmed.

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#103

Post by ionised »

ucaetano wrote: post #25

It is worth remembering the The Intercept used to (still does?) work with and publish material from a Oracle-funded nonprofit that existed for the sole purpose of creating bad PR for Google: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/anti-google-rese...

What's wrong with creating bad PR if it's true?

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#105

Post by Ntrails »

rtkwe wrote: post #39
Animats wrote: post #17

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.

> 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.

Not being able to install noscript/adblock at work means that every time I go to bloomberg it does the garbage autoplay shit. So frustrating.

Why when I come to read an article would you think I'd want to hear someone talking??

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#108

Post by kermire »

romanovcode wrote: post #107

Let me tell you what will happen: - Google creates built-in adblocker that allows google ads - Google removes the adblockers from Google Store due to some reason - You don't have an adblocker anymore

The fact that Chrome automatically disables extensions that don't exist in the web store, in the name of security, is probably not a good sign. If it is for security, then advanced users should've been given a way to bypass this restriction, but it doesn't exist. If the adblockers get removed from the store, there would be no easy way to use them without abandoning Chrome.

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#109

Post by _pmf_ »

dragonwriter wrote: post #94
deprave wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has already happened. One of the reasons Goole renamed itself "Alphabet" and started using different brand names (e.g. "Waymo") for other products is to confuse consumers about their source. The "Google" brand has become synonymous with advertising and invasion of privacy, and the reversal of strategy (used to stick the brand on everything vs. isolating it to search and ads) is a hedge against the growing consum…

I think you have that backwards; the move was to allow higher risk ventures to go forward with the chance of visible failure without harming Google's brand reputation which, contrary to your description, is actually quite strong.

This is another way of saying the same thing.

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#110

Post by bbcbasic »

bjd2385 wrote: post #31

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.

It's saying to be careful when celebrating. Don't take anyone's eye out with the champaigne cork. Make sure there is a designated driver. Etc.
Post reply on HN