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

Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 186 posts

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#61

Post by Fnoord »

krelian wrote: post #5

This should be great on mobile. On mobile there are no extensions and there are at least two news sites I frequent that abuse it by showing a full page popup before every article.

Problem isn't browser on Android. You can install another like many others already said (I use Firefox + uBlock). The problem is that apps use Webview to embed. So you're going to need to use another option to block ads on Android in general:

1) Use DNS66 as another user said. Doesn't require root. (Does make a local VPN, so removes option to use a VPN.)

2) Use Pi-Hole on a Pi at home and make a VPN to it. Bonus: you get access to your home network (if you config it as such) and are secure over open WiFi and hostile 4G. Doesn't require root.

3) You can root your phone and use /etc/hosts or IPT

4) Firefox 58 will allow you to run tabs as "apps" which are pinned in the OS. If that takes off, that's going to result in a massive dent in paid apps from Google Play as well as ad revenue from Android.

As for this action by Google, its a charming move. Remember that time when Google was just new, and was only text ads on Google search engine?

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#62

Post by dingo_bat »

Artlav wrote: post #24
wst_ wrote: post #23

I still find it amusing that they consider auto-play video OK as long as it's muted. Sound is the problem, but so is auto-playing itself.

They are all probably too rich to understand the concept of paying for mobile data.

I pay 5$ for three months unlimited LTE data on my phone here in India. They throttle me if I consume more than 1GB in a day. But that's enough for me to not worry about auto playing videos. But I really hate the audio. My point is that you don't have to be rich to not have to worry about mobile data now.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#63

Post by pc86 »

jwilk wrote: post #54
jicks wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article, the ads deemed "overly annoying or intrusive" are defined by "the standards established by the Coalition for Better Ads, of which it is a member". Since it's not Google actually deciding this, how is that anti-competitive? BTW, the Coalition for Better Ads has many members [0], including Facebook and other big ads providers. I'm personally not convinced this will solve the issue, but I belie…

From the HN guidelines: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

Saying "According to the article" is not insinuating someone didn't read it. It's actually very close to "The article mentions that" which is the suggested phrase in your very quote.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#64

Post by jhasse »

fortythirteen wrote: post #27

How is this not anti-competitive behavior? If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the same thing?!

largest market share != monopoly

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#65

Post by rdsubhas »

Will it be using static whitelist files (and will they be updated separately, or as part of the browser update)?

Because the last thing (in addition to non-competitive behavior and a host of other things) is to send all browsing traffic/history to google services to validate if its an ad or not.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#66

Post by dragonwriter »

jicks wrote: post #49
fortythirteen wrote: post #27

How is this not anti-competitive behavior? If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the same thing?!

According to the article, the ads deemed "overly annoying or intrusive" are defined by "the standards established by the Coalition for Better Ads, of which it is a member". Since it's not Google actually deciding this, how is that anti-competitive? BTW, the Coalition for Better Ads has many members [0], including Facebook and other big ads providers. I'm personally not convinced this will solve the issue, but I belie…

> According to the article, the ads deemed "overly annoying or intrusive" are defined by "the standards established by the Coalition for Better Ads, of which it is a member". Since it's not Google actually deciding this, how is that anti-competitive?

The argument I see for this: because it's a group Google, an ad seller, is part of deciding what ads are allowed and then Google blocking violating ads. Arguably, by pairing standards with blocking, the Coalition for Better Ads, including Google, are jointly engaging in a combination in restraint of trade.

An anti-competitive action doesn't become less anti-competitive when instead of one actor with dominant marketshare, you add additional incumbent actors in the market into the decision process and make it an agreement to restrict what products are acceptable to sell and actively block other products in that category.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#67

Post by jhasse »

dingo_bat wrote: post #62
Artlav wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are all probably too rich to understand the concept of paying for mobile data.

I pay 5$ for three months unlimited LTE data on my phone here in India. They throttle me if I consume more than 1GB in a day. But that's enough for me to not worry about auto playing videos. But I really hate the audio. My point is that you don't have to be rich to not have to worry about mobile data now.

In Germany you'll get 1GB per month for 5$. And probably not LTE.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#68

Post by baud147258 »

docdeek wrote: post #28
Artlav wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are all probably too rich to understand the concept of paying for mobile data.

It depends on where you are, I guess. I pay for data on my cell in France but the amount of data I am allowed each month before things start to slow down (100GB, up from 50GB a few months ago) means I never get close to getting throttled by auto-playing videos.

Lucky you. I'm in France and I got 50 Mo before starting to pay for my data. Granted, I'm using the old 5€ offering from Orange (called Sosh), because I'm not using a lot of data (no video, very few pictures, some text) and I'm too lazy to change. Also I'm not sure my phone can support another mobile network.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#69

Post by sly010 »

ajnin wrote: post #55
fortythirteen wrote: post #27

How is this not anti-competitive behavior? If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the same thing?!

Especially that part : > it will be blocking all ads from sites where even one ad displayed on the site doesn’t meet those standards, even if the rest are technically in compliance. Which can be interpreted as : "only run Google ads, if you use other platforms and we don't like even one of their ads we will block all your ad revenue."

We just need a browser extension to _install_ a single non compliant ad on every page and let chrome do the rest :)

Is it just me or the web is becoming more fragmented than ever: First the Safari intelligent anti tracking stuff, then Firefox's delayed loading and now this. Things will break is subtle ways.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#70

Post by virgilp »

dingo_bat wrote: post #62
Artlav wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are all probably too rich to understand the concept of paying for mobile data.

I pay 5$ for three months unlimited LTE data on my phone here in India. They throttle me if I consume more than 1GB in a day. But that's enough for me to not worry about auto playing videos. But I really hate the audio. My point is that you don't have to be rich to not have to worry about mobile data now.

That's (a) a very good price, and (b) I suspect a lot of money, for people in India. You are not "rich" by western standards, but you may be by Indian ones... and anyway, the bottom line is that you are fortunate enough to afford high-quality, unlimited mobile data. I suspect there are plenty of people in the world who don't have unlimited data (e.g. I don't, not that I mind much).

The second point is that "data" is not everything. There's also the aspect of needlessly consuming the battery; and potentially loading the page slower, just to load the video ad first (especially frustrating when/if you're in an area with bad coverage).

Post reply on HN