Who is the Coalition for Better Ads? Their About page gives no names. Is Google a member? How influential is Google? Whose interests does the Coalition serve? https://www.betterads.org/about/ "Leading international trade associations and companies involved in online media ..."
Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
101–110 of 504 posts
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#102My cynical side can't help but think they will do this first, then later disable uBlock / other ad blockers (or the APIs they rely on) and claim that "we can do it better." I can't imagine that this isn't a violation of some kind of law (RICO, antitrust, or otherwise), but I don't imagine this would ever be prosecuted.
Apparently Google does not allow Chrome extensions that let you download YouTube videos, seems like a nice precedence.
Looking at popularvideo downloaders gets you things like Video Downloader professional: "Caution: The download of YouTube videos to hard drive is locked because of restrictions of the Chrome Store."
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#103My cynical side can't help but think they will do this first, then later disable uBlock / other ad blockers (or the APIs they rely on) and claim that "we can do it better." I can't imagine that this isn't a violation of some kind of law (RICO, antitrust, or otherwise), but I don't imagine this would ever be prosecuted.
There's really no way to disable all ad-blocking in a browser, even if the browser-vendor wanted desperately to do so, because—whether ad-stripping browser extensions exist or not—ad-stripping HTTP proxies (e.g. Privoxy) will always exist. And if you think users couldn't handle using one of those, there's nothing stopping someone from making an e.g. "Privoxy configurator + blocklist updater" browser extension that ju…
Of course there is. They can make it so annoying that the ads doesn't look that bad. They own the browser. They can make it so bad that even flash ads will look like a good alternative to all the work required.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is interesting. It seems to me that it could be considered to be monopoly abuse and it also seems to be pro-consumer. A strange combination.
> It seems to me that it could be considered to be monopoly abuse and it also seems to be pro-consumer. The move only is pro-consumer where it benefits Google's bottom line: Blocking competitors ads, using a standard that Google easily meets. It's similar to when countries block agricultural imports that don't meet a standard that is unique to their domestic industry, in the name of "safety". For example, I don't exp…
> The move only is pro-consumer where it benefits Google's bottom line: Blocking competitors ads, using a standard that Google easily meets. It's similar to when countries block agricultural imports that don't meet a standard that is unique to their domestic industry, in the name of "safety".
I never thought of this implementation but I imagine this is one of the few ways Google can bundle in ad blocking in Chrome. As long as third party blockers (specifically uBlock Origin https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode for me) I don't mind. I go back and forth to using Mozilla Firefox mostly because I use it on Android but I appreciate all that Google has done to move the web forward.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#105My cynical side can't help but think they will do this first, then later disable uBlock / other ad blockers (or the APIs they rely on) and claim that "we can do it better." I can't imagine that this isn't a violation of some kind of law (RICO, antitrust, or otherwise), but I don't imagine this would ever be prosecuted.
There's really no way to disable all ad-blocking in a browser, even if the browser-vendor wanted desperately to do so, because—whether ad-stripping browser extensions exist or not—ad-stripping HTTP proxies (e.g. Privoxy) will always exist. And if you think users couldn't handle using one of those, there's nothing stopping someone from making an e.g. "Privoxy configurator + blocklist updater" browser extension that ju…
The only issue with that is HTTPS, which Privoxy currently can't handle ( https://www.privoxy.org/faq/misc.html ) and will become even more of a problem with the current "encrypt everything" trend. Certificate pinning and all the other stuff aimed at making TLS harder to MITM also gets in the way of effective adblocking proxies. The only one I know of which can MITM SSL on Windows is Proxomitron, and you still have to patch the browser(s).
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#106If you go to a restaurant and order a salad, you're not obligated to eat the olives, and you have the right to take them off your plate. Likewise, you have the right to bring an intermediary who looks at your salad and hides all the olives for you. If your intermediary happens to work for Green Olive Co. and he hides the black olives but not the green ones, you have the right to switch to another intermediary. Or get…
In your metaphor the salad is filled on your plate by you running back and forth to a salad bar to grab the ingredients one by one. Those of us with ad blockers don't bother fetching the olives at all.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#107Wow that seems like playing with fire for Google. Maybe they figure that Trump's lax antitrust enforcement will give them free rein to screw with competitors for the next 4-8 years.
What law does this violate?
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#108Who is the Coalition for Better Ads? Their About page gives no names. Is Google a member? How influential is Google? Whose interests does the Coalition serve? https://www.betterads.org/about/ "Leading international trade associations and companies involved in online media ..."
https://www.betterads.org/members/
Thanks; I don't know how I missed that.
Google is a member, FWIW, among very many.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#109Who is clicking on these ads, anyway? I've never understood how this adds up to profit (for the advertisers).
It should be telling that generally most advertising is paid per impression, not per click (even when the advertiser pays per click, their cost per click is generally calculated from CTR and thus really a cost per impression)
You might not click on the ads, but (if you're not blocking them) you're probably seeing them, and remembering some of them, and they influence you.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#110If you go to a restaurant and order a salad, you're not obligated to eat the olives, and you have the right to take them off your plate. Likewise, you have the right to bring an intermediary who looks at your salad and hides all the olives for you. If your intermediary happens to work for Green Olive Co. and he hides the black olives but not the green ones, you have the right to switch to another intermediary. Or get…
Sure, but in your example, you've paid for the salad. The whole reason (presumably) that advertising has gotten in the state it's in is that nobody wants to pay for things, but it costs money to keep the lights on.
Full disclaimer: I use things for free day in and day out. I try to pay for things that I find value in as my budget allows. I find many ads annoying.