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

301–310 of 486 posts

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

#301

Post by xg15 »

capableweb wrote: post #89
Zambyte wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Firefox is owned by Google You're gonna have to explain why you think this, because publicly, Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way. But maybe you know something the rest of us don't?

My guess is, GP is referring to the significant amount of funding that Mozilla gets from Google. Not sure if it's still the case, but I believe at least for a time, it was actually their main source of funding and basically what kept the whole organisation alive.

So by "don't bite the hand that feeds you" logic, they couldn't be interested in being too adverse with Google, because in the end, this could threaten their whole existence.

Not sure if this is still the case though, or if they managed to diversify.

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

#302

Post by jeltz »

hcks wrote: post #277
liendolucas wrote: post #116

Do you know what puzzles me most? How can software engineers work on something like this? Don't those paid engineers or involved ones have the balls or dignity to walk away? I'm just wondering how they would feel about this (if they feel anything at all). I mean, if I'd be in such a position and asked to push something like this I'd have walked away on the spot, no matter what you offer me. No one at Google is standi…

Ok but have you considered that making people watch ads to use an optional service is not a war crime

No, of course they haven't! Thanks for adding this insightful and revolutionary perspective to the debate. Everything which is less serious than war crimes is obviously morally ok.

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

#303

Post by cmilton »

nequo wrote: post #233
cmilton wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What should HN readers do that are forced to work within these ecosystems? Ex. Work, school. It’s not always so easy to walk away from an entire platform. People’s entire livelihoods could be based around Google. I don’t see any issue with Google owning some of this responsibility.

Google is a monopolist that acts like a monopolist. Its main revenue source is advertising. So it will use its monopoly power to secure advertising. You cannot expect Google to act against its own self-interest only because you ask nicely. You have to stop giving them the market power to do it.

Have they won the game of capitalism by becoming a monopoly?

I don’t expect Google to act against its own will, but they should.

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

#304

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#305

Post by bogwog »

erklik wrote: post #201
edg5000 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched over to a fully open source environment, at least for mobile/desktop OS, browser, almost all software as well as cloud file storage etc. But with a notable exception where I still use Google Search. Perhaps with the rise of LLMs, one day I will run my own LLM to complete the move to being no longer reliant on monopolists.

Depending on the use-case, I find DDG is far better in many cases in returning sane search results. Might be a option to try. Not entirely open-source but better than the GOOG.

And kagi.com is way better than DDG if you're willing to pay

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

#306

Post by Bluecobra »

Borealid wrote: post #19
nurpax wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AR?

The grandparent likely means Augmented Reality; they may be imagining a strange world where you wear glasses that filter ads out of your vision, and yet those ads are on a computer screen you view rather than right there in the headset being projected onto your eyes.

AR seems like a gimmick/fad. I think we’re more likely to see eyeball scanning ads/AI ala Minority Report instead.

Hello, Mr. Yakamoto! Welcome back to The Gap…

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

#307

Post by RajT88 »

px43 wrote: post #205
RajT88 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A simple example would be just rejecting ad-blocking extensions from their Chrome store. They've never done anything close to that (including all the manifest v3 hullabaloo where they explicitly worked with ad-blocking teams to help them migrate) so who in their right mind would think that they would try to sneak it in via some fancy new web standard that wouldn't even be able to effectively block ad-blocking if it…

Brave is on the Play store (it's what I use on Mobile), as are several other browsing options with built in ad-blocking support. Chrome Mobile is very stripped down, but the idea that they disabled all extensions just to get at ad-blockers is completely unfounded.

"Brave is on the play store" is a very similar argument to "You do not have to use IE, you can install Netscape". And subject to the same logical holes.

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

#308

Post by xg15 »

capableweb wrote: post #106
Zambyte wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way. Who owns Mozilla? Put another way, if Google stops funding Mozilla, will it still exist? The only reason Firefox exists is because Google wants something they can point to in court and say "look! we're not a monopoly!"

Mozilla is two parts, the Mozilla Foundation and a subsidiary which is Mozilla Corporation. Neither of those are "funded" by Google. I'm guessing you're referring to the search partnership between the two? That doesn't mean that Google owns Mozilla, unless you're really unclear about what "partnership" or "deal" means. Mozilla have multiple deals with search engines, not just Google.

What other deals with search engines are there and do they bring the same amount of income for Mozilla?

The internal organisation of Mozilla doesn't really seem relevant here.

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

#309

Post by joelthelion »

nfriedly wrote: post #202
joelthelion wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can actually use more extensions on Android. It's just more involved than it should be. The trick is to create an "extension collection" from your Mozilla account. Then you can use any extension, and a lot of them just work.

Yeah, I know - I ended up switching to Iceraven on my phone, though. I've heard good things about Mull too. But I didn't want to muddy the original post with all that.

Your post was perfect. We need to get people off Chrome, and ideally off Chromium-based browsers. It doesn't matter which.

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

#310

Post by ignitionmonkey »

danielovichdk wrote: post #52

I know ads is a huge business. I never click them. Who clicks on ads? Really? What segment of Internet users does?

They don't require interaction. Think about billboards, TV/video ads, sponsorship ads, etc. It's enough for you to just see an ad, to not forget a brand or product exists.

At some point, you might think about a product subconsciously due to any reason, and since you saw the ads, you'll think of a specific company's product and likely rank them higher among "unknown" brands by default. That will bubble up at some point and you'll have a desire for it which you either accept or reject. Most will accept, causing more to accept to be in the group. It's human nature.

Any interaction is a bonus.

Post reply on HN