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

111–120 of 179 posts

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#111

Post by petra »

kermire wrote: post #108
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.

Chrome is open-source, you could use an alternative chrome based browser, like srware iron.

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#112

Post by LeifCarrotson »

_pmf_ wrote: post #109
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.

This is another way of saying the same thing.

No, deprave and dragonwriter are making opposite claims. Deprave is claiming that Google created new brands like Waymo and Alphabet so that the (claimed) distrust of Google would not negatively affect these ventures. Dragonwriter is claiming that Google created new brands so that if the new, risky ventures failed, those failures would not negatively affect the well-liked Google brand.

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#113

Post by deprave »

RickS wrote: post #102
deprave wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some of the times they're harmed, some of the times they're not. There's no correlation, ruling out the slightest possibility of causation. Is it risk management, then? No, because a product with a well known and trusted brand has much higher chances of success. Is Google internationally reducing the success chance of their billion dollar bets? No. The only reasonable conclusion to make is that Google doesn't want to taint their new offerings with the existing brand.

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#114

Post by TeMPOraL »

jfasi wrote: post #44
anth1988 wrote: post #33

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…

> 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.

Here's a thing: as a user, I'd much prefer them to implement it as a whitelist. We really don't need more "innovation" in ad space - because it always means more dishonesty, more annoyance and more tracking. Ads have already maxed-out their primary feature - informing consumers about things available on the market. Everything on top of that is malicious in purpose. And I think it would be better for everyone if companies would spend money and innovation effort on improving their actual product instead.

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#115

Post by khana »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #112
_pmf_ wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is another way of saying the same thing.

No, deprave and dragonwriter are making opposite claims. Deprave is claiming that Google created new brands like Waymo and Alphabet so that the (claimed) distrust of Google would not negatively affect these ventures. Dragonwriter is claiming that Google created new brands so that if the new, risky ventures failed, those failures would not negatively affect the well-liked Google brand.

How about Fuck Google.

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#116

Post by TeMPOraL »

nostrademons wrote: post #26
Shank wrote: post #5

> 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…

"Just the facts" journalism was always a myth, because journalists inherently choose which facts to report. IMHO The Intercept has been pretty up-front about their POV: they're supposed to be the publication that speaks truth to power, meaning that they're opposed to basically all big institutions (Google, Facebook, big corporations, establishment media, both political parties, the government, all governments, etc.)…

I think journalism itself should go away in its present form (and in the form it has been for the past centuries). Because as it is today, it's held to ridiculously low standards.

I mean, consider how would you handle any kind of factual investigation that actually matters to you. Say your production server suddenly overloaded and died, and everyone in your company is trying to figure out what happened.

Would the search involve interviewing engineers and management, and then writing biased stories about their life and decisions? Would you treat "investigators inherently choose which facts to report" as an acceptable standard for their work?

No. You'd start with a fact database, you'd go on collecting every bit of related information, making it available to see and analyze, you'd gather conclusions and add things, mark some entries as "dead ends", etc. until the real cause reveals itself. Suddenly it's entirely possible to reach unbiased facts. I wish we created our news the same way.

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#117

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#118

Post by AliAdams »

deprave wrote: post #113
RickS wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Some of the times they're harmed, some of the times they're not. There's no correlation, ruling out the slightest possibility of causation. Is it risk management, then? No, because a product with a well known and trusted brand has much higher chances of success. Is Google internationally reducing the success chance of their billion dollar bets? No. The only reasonable conclusion to make is that Google doesn't want to…

Your logic is flawed.

"Some of the times they're not" does not exclude a potential correlation.

For example: "Some of the time, going to the hospital will not make me better, therefore there is no correlation between going to a hospital and getting better"

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#119

Post by mannykannot »

deprave wrote: post #113
RickS wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Some of the times they're harmed, some of the times they're not. There's no correlation, ruling out the slightest possibility of causation. Is it risk management, then? No, because a product with a well known and trusted brand has much higher chances of success. Is Google internationally reducing the success chance of their billion dollar bets? No. The only reasonable conclusion to make is that Google doesn't want to…

How well established is it that there is no correlation?

Re: Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker

#120

Post by 1123581321 »

deprave wrote: post #113
RickS wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Some of the times they're harmed, some of the times they're not. There's no correlation, ruling out the slightest possibility of causation. Is it risk management, then? No, because a product with a well known and trusted brand has much higher chances of success. Is Google internationally reducing the success chance of their billion dollar bets? No. The only reasonable conclusion to make is that Google doesn't want to…

What you describe in your first sentence is a correlation. Additionally, risk management sometimes involves preventing things that have never happened before.

We may just have to disagree on the value of Google. It seems obvious to me that it is a critical asset to Alphabet that must not lose search/product share before another Alphabet subsidiary pays off. I believe the purpose of spinning companies out of Google is more about improving capital allocation than protecting either brand, with the possible exception of Waymo if there is a huge backlash against autonomous vehicles.

Post reply on HN