141–150 of 186 posts
So does this prevent iframe hijack and pop-up types of annoying ads? They are the kinds I really really want to stop seeing. Unfortunately uBlock can only block so many.
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.
Of course, that ended not too long ago. While having IE was necessary to hit the web, it immediately presented the choices available.
Long as I can keep using uBlock Origin and disable theirs it's fine with me.
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.
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.
Which is key. Television ad regulations aren't set – and enforced – by the dominant advertisement broker.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
Having IE preinstalled was not necessary; OEMs could have (and some did) preinstall other browsers. What happened was that Microsoft decided to base unrelated parts of Windows on IE so that their browser would have to be preinstalled (Windows would not function without it). There was top-level direction on that decision and it was not actually motivated by a specific technical need.
I bet it won't block all the damn "download our shitty app instead of using the fully functional website we have" full screen popups...
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."
"As long as I can download Netscape, having IE pre-installed is fine with me." Sure it is. If I buy a operation system and it comes bundled with a browser ... why should that be a problem? (the problem I see somewhere else...that you have sometimes no choice except to use that OS because of market dominance)
So yes, in fact, having IE pre-installed was a problem and ultimately Microsoft was forced to create this: