Live data from Hacker News

How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

ctrl.blog

161–170 of 326 posts

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#161

I'm so glad Google is starting to put the customer first again. I hope the media gives credit where it's due, instead of this non-stop negative sensationalistic media we've been getting. I for one, hope there's some kind of blocking for embedded videos. I haven't had luck with the existing solutions out there.

As someone here said, don't trust a burglar to install a security system.

Google is doing this to make sure their ads will be displayed. If chrome has built in ad blocking many people won't feel the need to install ad blockers that block all ads.

Another point mentioned is that this could be used in the future to hamper business of their competitors. It is very unlikely that this is why it was created, but don't forget that Google is a publicly traded company, if they will be pressed against a wall they will use anything available, and this could cause a serious damage against their competitors.

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#162
post #140
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am EU-based and I guess you are US-based? That would count for some difference in perspective. IIRC Microsoft was fighting both US and EU competition cases and it pretty much handed them a lost decade. Not sure about the current US climate with regards to anti competitive behaviour, but if there are US-competitors in the ad market that are hit by step 2, I guess even some Republicans would see that as a bridge too…

You're correct that I'm in the US. Microsoft repeatedly bested the US prosecutors- it took the EU to stop them. Is the EU aggressive about stopping trackers?

I'd say yes when considering the existing and new privacy laws being passed. Some of the identification and data reselling that is typical in the US is not done for European customers because it's not allowed.

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#163
post #89

I think there's good intentions by Google here. That said, let's talk about the worst-case scenario, the thing that Google could actually do that is entirely anti-competitive. Step 1: Google finds a large number of competitors who are doing pretty well playing by their rules. Google finds some trait they all have in common. Google then modifies their own ads to not have that trait. Step 2: Google declares the given t…

I feel like there's a simpler explanation that's still not 'good intentions': 1. Lots of people are using adblockers to block all ads, including Google's, and they don't like that. 2. People mostly install adblockers to block really annoying ads.* 3. By building in an adblocker that blocks annoying ads, people will stop installing full adblockers that also block Google's ads. *There are real issues with non-annoying…

There's another step here: Google encouraging paywalls for people who do have an adblocker installed. Paywalls that they themselves will service. See https://support.google.com/fundingchoices/answer/7362965?hl=... and its explicit mention in https://www.blog.google/topics/journalism-news/building-bett...

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why did the competitors, including the top competitors in terms of revenue, sign up to be part of the consortium? I see this as a shot at piracy sites, if anything. Since they cannot join reputable ad networks, they join disreputable ones that don't even try to police their ads or publishers and show shady and misleading ads. Those will all be blocked now, choking the piracy sites of revenue. The primary benefic…

> Then why did the competitors, including the top competitors in terms of revenue, sign up to be part of the consortium? They don't have a choice. Either they join the cartel or they watch their ads vanish entirely[0] from the most popular browser. I don't think this is an either/or thing. Google is doing something with positive externalities. But it also so happens to align 100% with their commercial interests. [0]…

> Either they join the cartel or they watch their ads vanish entirely[0] from the most popular browser.

Why do you think they didn't want to join? They get the same benefits as Google and the Internet at large. I'm having a hard time following your logic for why this is Google attacking its competitors if its competitors are unaffected by the change.

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can trust a burglar to install a security system that will keep other burglars out, but you can be 100% sure that you will not be able to keep the installer out, in fact you are just about giving them an incentive to rob you blind at the first opportunity. Google will do an amazing job at blocking competitor ads.

Then why did the competitors, including the top competitors in terms of revenue, sign up to be part of the consortium? I see this as a shot at piracy sites, if anything. Since they cannot join reputable ad networks, they join disreputable ones that don't even try to police their ads or publishers and show shady and misleading ads. Those will all be blocked now, choking the piracy sites of revenue. The primary benefic…

There is is word for it - oligopoly

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#167
I hope Mozilla will do the same, only with a proper ad blocker. It's the only thing that makes sense given the two organizations' goals and purposes. Either that or they're loving their sponsorship money too much and there's no difference in goal or purpose between the two organizations. Can't wait to see if they stand up for users or lie down for money.

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there's a simpler explanation that's still not 'good intentions': 1. Lots of people are using adblockers to block all ads, including Google's, and they don't like that. 2. People mostly install adblockers to block really annoying ads.* 3. By building in an adblocker that blocks annoying ads, people will stop installing full adblockers that also block Google's ads. *There are real issues with non-annoying…

> There are real issues with non-annoying ads, like tracking, but I don't think most people know or care very much about that. I speak to a lot of people who find "retargeting" deeply creepy. The awareness of the problem is there. However, they don't understand what causes it, how it works or that it's even possible to stop it.

Its also just bad salesmanship.

There was an electronics store called CompUSA. I didn’t always shop there but I did buy Christmas presents there. Then one year they started using transparent shopping bags. Which means you can’t shop for anybody that is on the trip with you, or lives with you. It made it a hassle to keep a secret and I just gave up.

So now if I am looking at jewelry for my partner, ads for the exact things I looked at will follow me around for the next several weeks. Dumber still, it will show me ads for an expensive item I already bought. Telegraphing my purchase history.

If someone just bought a new TV, then showing then TV ads is pretty much the dumbest move you can make. The target is at an all time low for probability of purchasing that item. And worse, you risk triggering buyer’s remorse. Repeatedly.

But this is Amazons engineering culture. Don’t reason about anything. Just try it and see. It’s amoral most of the time (but refusing to address ethics is itself immoral).

They are basically a giant factory for throwing spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks. I think all they can do is get more parasitic until people say no.

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#169

Here's how my ad blocker works: - Install uMatrix (firefox/chrome add-on) - Manually whitelist javascript Get uMatrix folks.

Don't get how it's different from ublock or what's the benefits of umatrix

It blocks all third party scripts by default, allows first party scripts by default, and offers a very intuitive and clean interface for selectively allowing frames, xhr requests, scripts, etc. It has a better UX than uBlock in my experience.
Post reply on HN