91–100 of 186 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Frankly this seems to be another excuse to build a walled garden ??? How do you make the leap there? Adblocking = walled garden? Are you just picking a random buzzword? Edit: Do the people replying to me understand the meaning of a "walled garden"?
They want to be the sole ad provider, is what that means
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I don't see how this can possibly not be considered illegal anti-competitive behavior. Their goals are not really anti-competitive. The point of this feature is to stop the bleed from ad blocking extensions and alternative browsers which are the real threat to their business. But there is no way for them to do this that doesn't end up looking really bad. Probably they know it will get shut down eventually, b…
I think this is a critical point. I bet that Google has reams of internal research on the use of ad-blockers. I am further willing to bet they have discovered the following: 1) Users say they block ads because they are annoying, rather than any deeper philosophical arguments about the nature of advertising 2) Users tend not to bother with white-listing and just use the defaults - i.e. block all ads, even Google! 3) O…
That's true villainy right there, how dare they! /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Evidently, you can use a CD or 100 floppy disks. But not necessary because IE is the best tool in the world for installing Chrome and Mozilla.
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? 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 pai…
Let's take TV as a comparison. On TV the ads have guidelines on what they can do and show, set by the tv channel and the broader regulation. On the internet, there isn't anything, it's the wild west. It can't hurt to get some minimal standards, doesn't matter where it comes from as long as it's enforced.
Source (Google): https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/12/better-ads
* Where can I download the ad experience report?
* So if I replace the ad using a different approach (DOM path, attrs, domain, etc) every 29 days, this isn't going to block anything?
* Where is the code that does the blocking on Chromium so I can read it? Specifically, I want to see if it's client side or not.
Can anyone shed any light here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 100 GB Just across the border, in Germany, a usual data plan includes only 1-4 GB before slowdown to 2G.
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…
Boy, I don't. Ask yourself why this is not an extension instead (even if installed by default)? Also, where can I download this ad list? Why do you believe lack of transparency is a step in the right direction? You really believe that the perpetrators are the best enforcers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.