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

81–90 of 186 posts

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

#81

Post by user5994461 »

rdsubhas wrote: post #65

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.

All the browser have lists of websites that are automatically updated periodically in the background.

To give a non controversial example, there is a list of "phishing and malware domains". It's been going on for a very long time.

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

#82

Post by pc86 »

jicks wrote: post #79
pc86 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I edited my comment to follow the guidelines.

Thank you for the clarification :) Hopefully jwilk edits their comment accordingly.

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

#83

Post by user5994461 »

fortythirteen wrote: post #30
ourmandave wrote: post #6

Long as I can keep using uBlock Origin and disable theirs it's fine with me.

Still doesn't make it ok, from an anti-competitive standpoint. "As long as I can download Netscape, having IE pre-installed is fine with me."

Having IE pre installed is a necessary. How do you use the internet with nothing installed?

What's next? We're going to force shipping cars without wheels. It's unfair to decide what brand people should use without their consent.

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

#84

Post by kodablah »

user5994461 wrote: post #81
rdsubhas wrote: post #65

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.

All the browser have lists of websites that are automatically updated periodically in the background. To give a non controversial example, there is a list of "phishing and malware domains". It's been going on for a very long time.

I don't think it's completely fair to compare "Safe Browsing Lists" to ad blocking. While I agree and don't like that Google is a gatekeeper of those, it's sparingly used in my experience. Lists like these would require much more maintenance and oversight. I suppose you could say it is similar in how the lists might be updated, which IIRC is via an "extension"-like updating mechanism via crx update files.

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

#85

Post by paulmd »

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?!

Because there are multiple competing products you can switch to, or even multiple additional products (i.e. ublock/adblock) which you can add in Google's own product if you disagree with their stance.

It's not anti-competitive just because you don't like it.

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

#86

Post by baby »

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 12-15 pounds per month here in the UK, for unlimited calls and internet in the world. (I think in Europe I can call any european number for free, but in outside of it I might be limited to free calls to the UK only.)

France was even cheaper with the Free provider. They have 2 euros plans that are useful for most usages. (Internet cap is low but if you use more they charge you cheap fees.)

The US prices were insane for not much.

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

#87

Post by visarga »

herbst wrote: post #80
dingo_bat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I pay $1.20 a day for 20MB LTE and "unlimited" slow connection. 20MB is not even a writing error, usually the first thing that happens when i read news in the morning is a SMS that i went over my high speed limit. This is in Switzerland, and i had similar bad offers in the Netherlands and Germany. My point is, while most countries figured this out meanwhile. Some "wealthy" ones didnt.

That's because having too powerful telecoms is bad for innovation and competition. The final poisoned fruit of successful capitalism/corporatism.

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

#88

Post by paulmd »

sly010 wrote: post #69
ajnin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Is it just me or the web is becoming more fragmented than ever

No, adblock has been around for a while now, this is just throwing around frivolous claims in an attempt at faux-intellectualism.

The internet is not going to end any more than it did when we put a stop to X-10 popup ads.

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

#89

Post by kodablah »

jicks wrote: post #11
thisisit wrote: post #2

It seems the criteria for blocking is rather discretionary. Are they going to block a site which has annoying Google ads? Frankly this seems to be another excuse to build a walled garden to try and serve their interests.

The criteria is not discretionary. They'll block ads that don't follow the guidelines defined by the Coalition for Better Ads [0] (Google is a member, but there is a lot of other members, like Facebook, ...). So yes, they'll block a site which has non-conforming Google ads. [0] : https://www.betterads.org/

Depends on how you define discretionary here. I say it's discretionary if a human chooses instead of a computer with clearly defined constraints. So if it's not discretionary, can you tell me what the specific rules are for determining something is an ad as opposed to some other kind of image?

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

#90

Post by kbwt »

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.

15.99€ per month for unlimited LTE in France with 25 GB of roaming in EU+USA included. No binding contract duration, you can cancel with a month's notice.

Only catch is you have to also be subscribed to an ADSL line of the same provider, otherwise the mobile plan costs 19.99€ and gets throttled after 100 GB.

Post reply on HN