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

131–140 of 186 posts

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

#131

Post by pwdisswordfish2 »

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.

{Safari,Firefox,Chrome,Edge} !== 'the web'

These are just browsers.

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

#132

Post by ksk »

paulmd wrote: post #85
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.

Nobody was blocking people from installing Netscape on windows PCs AFAIK.

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

#133

Post by ksk »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #112
fortythirteen wrote: post #30

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."

How would the typical early-2000s Windows user have downloaded Netscape without a preinstalled browser? FTP on the command line?

Makes sense to include a tool with the OS that would let you download stuff then. Like a web browser. :)

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

#135

Post by epicide »

user5994461 wrote: post #119
epicide wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge but subtle difference between the prevalence of ad blockers vs an ad blocker that is both backed by an ad company and built into the browser (presumably with no way to turn it off). We've seen examples of ad blockers becoming problematic when they have too much market share (AdBlock Plus).

AdBlock is fine except for not blocking google top links and amazon recommendation. It's still blocking everything else, which is a HUGE LOT.

The fact that AdBlock receives money to break the very thing they're supposed to fix (at the user's expense) is pretty messed up. Sure, it's better than nothing, but that's really not saying much.

There are better options out there that (currently) give you fine-grain control over what goes into your machine, so there is pretty much no reason to give over that control to a corrupt group.

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

#139

Post by belorn »

paulmd wrote: post #93
adwhit wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So Google is responding to criticisms of overly-intrusive advertising with less-intrusive advertising that doesn't poison the well for everyone, and blocking for the ads that do? That's true villainy right there, how dare they! /s

They are not responding to criticisms, but rather that people are installing spam protection for the web, making web advertisement about as relevant as email advertisement. Google did not become one of the richest companies in the world through email advertisement, and the reason is obvious. Email advertisement is kind of dead as it is impossible to have a email box without blocking unwanted email.

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

#140

Post by ksk »

paulmd wrote: post #93
adwhit wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So Google is responding to criticisms of overly-intrusive advertising with less-intrusive advertising that doesn't poison the well for everyone, and blocking for the ads that do? That's true villainy right there, how dare they! /s

The OP simply said all ads are annoying, not "overly intrusive ads". You're responding an imaginary point.
Post reply on HN