I am fine with this, at least less work for of ad blocker
shame I don't use chrome
How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works
261–270 of 326 posts
Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
i read the link only in part, but this look reasonable. if you exclude ads and paywall how should they make money? moreover when mozzilla made attempt to "non-tracking privacy-respectful ads" in the mr robot scandal everyone was at their throat. how should site make money then?
If you don't see the issue with Google enabling putting up paywalls, but only on sites that are showing ads that belong to them or to companies that made a deal with them, while blocking ads on sites that don't do Google's bidding, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Note that they are not being public with their list of sites that they will block ads on and reason why; nothing prevents them from putting sites on that list for any arbitrary reason they want.
Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't want to block ads on sites, unless the site is on the other list. That is, if site foo.com and bar.com both serve ads, but foo.com is on the "blacklist", the ad blocking will be enabled on foo.com. However, ad blocking will remain disabled on bar.com. It's not Google's intention to block all ads on all sites - only ads on "bad" sites. If they can reduce the number of adblock installs by reducing the overal…
Ah, I see now, EasyList is selectively applied after first determining whether the site "deserves" it. That's an evil use of the hard work of EasyList maintainers IMO. I wonder if I can find a way to make Chrome think every site is "bad". If not, uBO still for me.
I will bet you that once this rolls out Chrome is going to make it pretty hard to use something like uBO effectively...
Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
i read the link only in part, but this look reasonable. if you exclude ads and paywall how should they make money? moreover when mozzilla made attempt to "non-tracking privacy-respectful ads" in the mr robot scandal everyone was at their throat. how should site make money then?
I use uBlock Origin, but it's pretty easy to bypass: host ads on your own site. That's how ads worked in other forms of media for ages.
How about providing a meaningful service and request adequate compensation? Paywalls work fine for quality content. There's tons of proof that people are willing to pay for books, games, movies, and music. But by having a paywall, you lose out on search indexing. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works
#265Full disclosure: I work in ad-tech. 1. Why do you guys downvote civil, informative posts that just happen to be philosophically different than yours? Seems anti-knowledge, and a net negative to HN. 2. What do you think pays for the internet? This is the first time I've ever engaged in a discussion, but I've been lurking for a year or two, and at least half of the links shared in the comments are ad-supported. Probabl…
The notion that advertisements pay for websites is entirely fabricated. Recent research shows massive amounts of fraud with the involvement of the ad industry which eats through the money flowing through the ecosystem. See https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/ad-industry-insiders... and https://blog.confiant.com/uncovering-2017s-largest-malvertis....
Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works
#266Google telling us what "better ads" are is like a drug dealer lecturing you about crack quality control. They could have solved it years ago, but made tons of $ by letting the ad space become the wild west of nagware, malware, and tracking bonanza. If they were to provide a real adblocker, allowing people to opt-in to ads on sites they like, while blocking everything else, I'd have considered it, on the basis that an…
To me, "better ads" sounds like "humane torture" or "acceptable manipulation". The principle of ads is repugnant to me. There's no way to make it better. I don't need to be psychologically manipulated to buy things I don't need. There's no way to make that manipulation ok. What Google considers acceptable, I consider subtle and even more manipulative, trying to sneak it in where most people won't object to the intrus…
Any thoughts on how web search should be funded, in an ideal world, if ads are inherently repugnant?
Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
i read the link only in part, but this look reasonable. if you exclude ads and paywall how should they make money? moreover when mozzilla made attempt to "non-tracking privacy-respectful ads" in the mr robot scandal everyone was at their throat. how should site make money then?
I use uBlock Origin, but it's pretty easy to bypass: host ads on your own site. That's how ads worked in other forms of media for ages. How about providing a meaningful service and request adequate compensation? Paywalls work fine for quality content. There's tons of proof that people are willing to pay for books, games, movies, and music. But by having a paywall, you lose out on search indexing. You can't have your…
Hosting ads on your site isn't actually enough. uBlock Origin can and does block by CSS selector (and that's the default behavior if you use right-click -> Block Element).
It _does_ get pretty hard to block if your ads are bespoke native advertisements, though.
Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, "better ads" sounds like "humane torture" or "acceptable manipulation". The principle of ads is repugnant to me. There's no way to make it better. I don't need to be psychologically manipulated to buy things I don't need. There's no way to make that manipulation ok. What Google considers acceptable, I consider subtle and even more manipulative, trying to sneak it in where most people won't object to the intrus…
Any thoughts on how web search should be funded, in an ideal world, if ads are inherently repugnant?
I find this a really sinister bargain too. Citizen, allow yourself to be manipulated, or capitalism will crumble. Watch this ad designed to make you buy a car, or the website gets it!
There are other ways. Ask for donations, like Wikipedia (which as I understand it, is rolling in the dough). Fund it with taxes. Set up a plain ol' paywall and revitalise the slow, inefficient banking system until sending money tiny amounts of money is as easy as clicking "I agree" in an Apple EULA. If we're so strapped for cash that websites will crumble unless we all submit ourselves to the Ludovico technique, surely we have enough of an incentive to work on micropayment technology instead.
Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works
#269Earlier 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…
Unless they block YouTube ads, I think a lot of people are still going to use an ad blocker.
Yup, the most annoying ads I encounter on a daily basis are youtube ads. If they don't block them, I don't know what's the point of a adblocker.
Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works
#270It'll be interesting to see how sites respond to this. Will they eliminate intrusive ads[1] from their sites entirely? Or start trying to force users to disable their ad blockers before using the site?
I have a feeling this is going to lead to an increase in both of those behaviors.