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

Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 186 posts

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#161

Post by wdr1 »

fortythirteen wrote: post #27

How is this not anti-competitive behavior? If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the same thing?!

Google isn't setting the standard, nor are Google Ads immune from being blocked.

The Microsoft comparison doesn't apply at all.

The standard is defined here:

https://www.betterads.org/standards/

The committe membership is defined her:

https://www.betterads.org/members/

Note it does include Google, as well as Microsoft, Facebook, the Washington Post, Unilever & others.

Far from a "Google" thing, this seems an attempt for an industry to police itself.

Given the ad experiences I've seen on many sites, if anything it's overdue.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#162

Post by nugget »

wdr1 wrote: post #161
fortythirteen wrote: post #27

How is this not anti-competitive behavior? If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the same thing?!

Google isn't setting the standard, nor are Google Ads immune from being blocked. The Microsoft comparison doesn't apply at all. The standard is defined here: https://www.betterads.org/standards/ The committe membership is defined her: https://www.betterads.org/members/ Note it does include Google, as well as Microsoft, Facebook, the Washington Post, Unilever & others. Far from a "Google" thing, this seems an attempt…

As someone familiar with how this group came into being, I can tell you that Google is very much in the driver's seat. I don't fault them for that and it's probably unavoidable - but it's worth at least being transparent about it on a forum like this.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#164

Post by Spivak »

Fnoord wrote: post #61
krelian wrote: post #5

This should be great on mobile. On mobile there are no extensions and there are at least two news sites I frequent that abuse it by showing a full page popup before every article.

Problem isn't browser on Android. You can install another like many others already said (I use Firefox + uBlock). The problem is that apps use Webview to embed. So you're going to need to use another option to block ads on Android in general: 1) Use DNS66 as another user said. Doesn't require root. (Does make a local VPN, so removes option to use a VPN.) 2) Use Pi-Hole on a Pi at home and make a VPN to it. Bonus: you…

Some apps might use a WebView but any app that's using custom tabs ('Chrome tabs') can take advantage of the browser ad blocking. For Firefox all you have to do is turn it on in Firefox and make it your default browser.

You can already do 4 with sites that support being a PWAs and it's pretty good.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#165

Post by Fnoord »

Spivak wrote: post #164
Fnoord wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem isn't browser on Android. You can install another like many others already said (I use Firefox + uBlock). The problem is that apps use Webview to embed. So you're going to need to use another option to block ads on Android in general: 1) Use DNS66 as another user said. Doesn't require root. (Does make a local VPN, so removes option to use a VPN.) 2) Use Pi-Hole on a Pi at home and make a VPN to it. Bonus: you…

Some apps might use a WebView but any app that's using custom tabs ('Chrome tabs') can take advantage of the browser ad blocking. For Firefox all you have to do is turn it on in Firefox and make it your default browser. You can already do 4 with sites that support being a PWAs and it's pretty good.

AFAIK most apps use WebView. I use Firefox as default browser (even disabled Chrome, not using it), and still see ads (that is w/o any of the other methods mentioned).

PWA was part of Firefox 58 AFAIK, so you either need Firefox Beta or wait till January.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#166

Post by x0x0 »

user5994461 wrote: post #75
sly010 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just need a browser extension to _install_ a single non compliant ad on every page and let chrome do the rest :) Is it just me or the web is becoming more fragmented than ever: First the Safari intelligent anti tracking stuff, then Firefox's delayed loading and now this. Things will break is subtle ways.

It's always been pretty fragmented by browser. The different only affect some edge case around tracking, don't really mind breaking evil websites. It's good on long term. The infestation of ad is really really bad. My mother and my girlfriend can hardly browse the web anymore.

My mother and my partner's mother respond every time to those full page takeover ads that mimic a windows dialog box and play scary audio about viruses, tell her to call / give someone her credit card / let them remote into her computer. It's utterly infuriating these parasites are allowed to buy ads.

I aggressively install ad blocks and add domains to /etc/hosts to prevent having to remotely reinstall OSes every couple months.

These are the people google is trying to help with this move, imo. Because ublock still breaks pieces of the web, but they can't be trusted to browse the web without it.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#167

Post by earenndil »

deno wrote: post #109
9point6 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there a Google PageRank penalty for sites that do that now?

There’s a dedicated API now… https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/app-install-b... It uses some heuristics: > Be visited by the user twice, over two separate days during the course of two weeks. I think apps installed this way should be also limited to some subset of permissions they can request[1]. Otherwise this is almost like a bookmarking mechanism. [1] They could still explicitly ask for more, on use.

Google's own site doesn't do this! I haven't visited google sheets on my phone in quite a while (ever?), but when I go to sheets.google.com, I get an ad for the google sheets app, and it's in no way clear that it's possible to use a web interface. Same for google docs.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#168

Post by tyingq »

My favorite bit is the ban on interstitials with a countdown timer.

I hate those as much as anyone else, but....

Somehow the interstitials with countdown timers on videos, like YouTube, don't count...that's allowed.

Are they any less annoying than a pop-up that blocks text content for a set period of time? Both force an ad on you before viewing the actual content.

My worry is that this will shift many content providers from text to video. The web will turn into broadcast TV.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#169

Post by wef23f »

fortythirteen wrote: post #27

How is this not anti-competitive behavior? If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the same thing?!

Microsoft had a monopoly at a lower level in the stack. When all the software you rely on is win32, it's hard to move to Linux or OSX.

People can dump Chrome tomorrow for at least 4 fully-featured alternatives - Firefox, Safari, IE, Opera - which effectively support all the features of the web Chrome does.

Re: Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15

#170

Post by wef23f »

mattjsmith wrote: post #124
0xFFC wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In HN community: Because people in HN do have double standards when it comes to Microsoft vs Google.

Microsoft wanted you to buy their software. Google gives it away for free. That's the only thing I've come up with that explains the enduring romance.

Having a monopoly and abusing it are two different things.

MS was in a position to abuse it because no one could switch to OSX or Linux without huge expense; hard to run win32 apps.

Google is waaaay different. Alternatives that work just as well exist, and they exist for the same "free as in beer" to users as numerous alternatives.

Are we to punish Google because people aren't switching from their from their products to alternatives?

Post reply on HN