Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

stackdiary.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 486 posts

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#291

Post by voytec »

edg5000 wrote: post #97
nfriedly wrote: post #57

I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Awful stuff like this wouldn't stand a chance if Google didn't have such a near-monopoly position. For the sake of the open internet, please switch to a different browser. IMO, Firefox is best*, but even something chromium based is probably fine. Just not Google Chrome. * On desktop - Firefox is a bit weaker on Android, with an ex…

I agree, I use Firefox everywhere. But we must not forget the following: In 2011 Mozilla income was 85% derrived from Google, through the primary search engine deal. Around a billion was paid over three years as part of this deal at some point. Appearantly there was bidding by Microsoft for making Bing the default, which pushed up the pricing. So every time Mozilla speaks out against Google, it is a bit awkward, sinc…

> every time Mozilla speaks out against Google, it is a bit awkward, since they are biting the hand that feeds them.

Not at all. Controlled opposition has to pretend being an opposition.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#292

Post by detourdog »

Stammon wrote: post #280
mozball wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an example, Can you recommend a good tech/hacker video channel that is available somewhere else other than Youtube?

Do Channels on Nebula count? Since Nebula is paid only, ads free and creator owned (as far as I understand), it might be the one prime example of a video platform not incentivized to restrict access to only consumers using proprietary, big tech OSes.

I would say so.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#294

Post by yreg »

m000 wrote: post #14
yreg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate ads as much as anyone but providing a free service that runs ads and shares part of that income with content creators is hardly particularly evil.

People were quite ok with the ads when they were not as obnoxious as today. Apart from techies, few people would put the effort to block them. But these days, you want to watch a 2' video on YouTube you are subjected to 20-30" of unskippable ads. Discounting the privacy (and even security) concerns, this alone pushed a lot more people to start ad-blocking were they can.

I hate it as well, but you have the option to pay for the service instead.

If Netflix introduced a freemium mode where you can watch their content with injected ads for free, would that be evil as well?

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#295

Post by Delphiza »

phh wrote: post #115
Adverblessly wrote: post #32

It isn't just "make ad-blocking (near) impossible" as the current title of the submission suggests. It is: Make browsing the internet possible only on Chrome, Safari or Edge (with no modifications or extensions). No competition allowed in browsers. Make browsing the internet possible only on macOS, Windows, Android or iOS (no custom Android distributions, definitely no LineageOS or GrapheneOS or whatever). No competi…

Make browsing the internet possible only on CPUs allowed by Apple, Microsoft, Google. So no RISC-V just yet, and even when RISC-V will be supported by them: No competition allowed in CPU. Make browsing the internet possible only on SoCs allowed by Apple, Microsoft, Google. No competition allowed in SoC. [0] Make browsing the internet possible only on form factors approved by Apple, Microsoft, Google. So no calculator…

Make it impossible to browse the Internet from urinals. Needs to be added to the list :)

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#296

Post by nulbyte »

jefftk wrote: post #166
JacobSeated wrote: post #141

Technically we do not need "proof" that our users are human, not even when using AdSense to monetize our websites. The only reason Google think we do is because they implemented AdSense incorrectly. E.g. Using an impractical and underpriced PPC model. If they used a fixed pricing model this would not be a problem, and fake clicks would not even be an issue.

How does fixed pricing mean you don't need to care about bots? The site claims they get 1M visitors per day; should an advertiser believe them?

No, of course not. An advertiser should conduct do actual diligence, experiment, and find what works.

I am reminded of a story of a retailer who adódnak l accidently stopped advertising online and so no adverse change in sales. While I can't find the exact one I have in mind, it seems this isn't rare.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/augustinefou/2021/01/02/when-bi...

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#297

Post by Drakim »

jeroenhd wrote: post #281

People get mad at Google for implementing something Apple already implemented up to a point, that the economic driving force behind the free internet is asking for. It's a shit idea but honestly Google isn't even the bad guy here. Everyone is mad at the theoretical anti-adblock usage of theoretical websites. Be mad at those websites instead! Almost every free service out there runs on ads. If you pay your subscriptio…

> It's a shit idea but honestly Google isn't even the bad guy here. Everyone is mad at the theoretical anti-adblock usage of theoretical websites. Be mad at those websites instead!

Absolutely not, Google is the driving force giving them that power, knowing it's very ripe for that sort of abuse.

Google is experimenting with detecting adblockers on YouTube. Don't for a moment think that the fact that this can be used to stop adblocking is lost on google. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if that was secretly one of the main drivers behind it all.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#298

Post by gettodachoppa »

aziaziazi wrote: post #187
scrollaway wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Victim blaming BS. Let's see who else is the problem. How about all those engineers who decided not to contribute to Firefox? Or all those website developers who didn't test their site in Firefox? Or hell, why not all those Mozilla engineers who didn't fix Firefox hard enough? Let's put the blame where it actually is. Google is…

> an unlimited marketing budget for. I never seen a single chrome add. I'm sure we're in different part of the world and in different add segments, but seems to me chrome marketing in not that widespread, is it ? As a retired FE engineer, the top reason I used chrome and test with it was the powerful yet light devtools.

>I never seen a single chrome add

Try browsing Google from a browser other than Chrome.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#300

Post by Terretta »

azangru wrote: post #276
Adverblessly wrote: post #32

It isn't just "make ad-blocking (near) impossible" as the current title of the submission suggests. It is: Make browsing the internet possible only on Chrome, Safari or Edge (with no modifications or extensions). No competition allowed in browsers. Make browsing the internet possible only on macOS, Windows, Android or iOS (no custom Android distributions, definitely no LineageOS or GrapheneOS or whatever). No competi…

> Make browsing the internet possible only on Chrome, Safari or Edge (with no modifications or extensions). No competition allowed in browsers Forgive my stupidity, but isn't this only going to be the case for websites that will opt into the use of this api? Currently, websites can already do user agent sniffing, or hide their content behind a login wall; but we are not complaining that this is the end of the web. Or…

> isn't this only going to be the case for websites that will opt into the use of this?

How many web sites still serve you http:// instead of https:// ?

The transition was (is) entirely voluntary. Transition happened more slowly until browsers made the lack of https:// look scary.

https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2017/01/20/communicating-t...

Post reply on HN