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

How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

ctrl.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–326 of 326 posts

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#321

Post by mrguyorama »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #86
mastax wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Which is it, the super secret consortium that won't even let you download the full list of bad sites, or Easy List/Privacy? Why don't they just use EasyList and report offenders there instead of this new consortium? The lists serve different purposes. EasyList is a lit of ad-serving URLs to block. The uh, consortium list is a black/white list of which sites don't follow the standards. The standards are not about bad…

That's very kind of them to provide a convenient "white list" of ad-serving URLs for me to block.

That whitelist is very likely an API endpoint or otherwise locked down, which will help them log every single url requested by your browser for "debugging purposes". Rather similar to how smartscreen works on windows

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#322

Post by mrguyorama »

skybrian wrote: post #113
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is very seldom information based. Advertising is primarily about making you buy a product from a particular company, whether it's a good product or not, whether it's right for you or not. If it were about letting people know your products then 'Nide' would have "if you want these for cross-training the best show are 'Reebob' Cross2" on the advert for their training shoes. Advertising is almost orthogonal…

There are also what I call reminder ads. They don't tell you anything new or convince anyone to change their mind about whether they like a product, but they remind people of products they already like. (Movie theater ads about buying food and drinks, for example. Or milk ads.) Advertisers want to make sure their customers don't forget to buy their stuff. This is much easier than actually convincing non-customers to…

And is equally disgusting. I am a grown-ass adult. I can make choices in my life about habits, desires, and expenditures without any of your bullshit "reminders". I am not a toddler who needs to be set on a schedule for "feeding time".

Don't let advertising companies fool you. Your entire purpose to them is to be just as valuable as the average slaughterhouse cow

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#323

Post by ec109685 »

jasode wrote: post #318
ec109685 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Starting on February 15, in line with the Coalition's guidelines, Chrome will remove all ads from sites that have a "failing" status in the Ad Experience Report for more than 30 days. All of this information can be found in the Ad Experience Report Help Center, and our product forums are available to help address any questions or feedback. It could not be more clear all ads will be removed from failing sites. https…

>"from failing sites." Again, I wasn't talking about "failing _websites_". I was talking about ad serving _domains_. You've lost track of what the conversation was about and the substance of what I was responding to. Please re-read the previous post to reset.[1] That post by d2wa was claiming a direct cause-&-effect blocking based purely on entries in EasyList . I replied that the article makes no such irrefutable cl…

Agree with your pseudo code.

So are we in agreement then? Google’s ad sense ads will be removed from sites that violate the better ad standard guidelines per google’s official documentation on this feature.

If so, the question here that you originally posed would be answered in the negative:

“I read the article but it doesn't clarify whether or not Google will hardcode a "whitelist" that will ignore EasyList entries for AdSense, DoubleClick, GoogleAnalytics, etc.”

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#324

Post by kretor »

mrguyorama wrote: post #320
pritambaral wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I interviewed with a stealth-level startup a few years back. They were developing a product, similar to a WiFi router, that would be installed on premise and sit there, filtering out Google/Facebook/etc. ads and replacing them with ads that the owner of the box wanted. You can imagine this box being installed in Starbucks, airports, libraries, and everywhere else. Funny, I was a similar boat once. They weren't a st…

The intrusive reading of emails is exactly what gmail does, isn't it?

Gmail doesn't do this anymore: https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in...

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#325

Post by jasonkostempski »

neolefty wrote: post #319
jasonkostempski wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web search shouldn't be centralized or closed source, it should be made of the same stuff Linux is. Whatever Linux does to keep existing, there should be a community driven web search project that mimics it.

How could openness coexist with adversarial SOE? Genuine question -- I think it's possible, but how? For example, "Optimizers" currently have to guess at what Google is doing, but if the system was open source, they would know exactly. For another example, modern cryptography actually benefits from openness. Is there a similar possibility for Search?

I have no clue really but I'd like to see what the results would be like if the presence of anything that makes a site money would count negatively towards it's ranking. Any eCommerce site unless the search is something like "where to buy...". Completely disqualify any site with ad network and tracking scripts. I'd also like to see "text/plain" given the highest ranking. There's not much incentive to game the system if you can't make money off it.

Re: How Google Chrome’s ad blocker works

#326

Post by jasode »

ec109685 wrote: post #323
jasode wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"from failing sites." Again, I wasn't talking about "failing _websites_". I was talking about ad serving _domains_. You've lost track of what the conversation was about and the substance of what I was responding to. Please re-read the previous post to reset.[1] That post by d2wa was claiming a direct cause-&-effect blocking based purely on entries in EasyList . I replied that the article makes no such irrefutable cl…

Agree with your pseudo code. So are we in agreement then? Google’s ad sense ads will be removed from sites that violate the better ad standard guidelines per google’s official documentation on this feature. If so, the question here that you originally posed would be answered in the negative: “I read the article but it doesn't clarify whether or not Google will hardcode a "whitelist" that will ignore EasyList entries…

>If so, the question here that you originally posed would be answered in the negative:

No. the answer is "positive" in the context of my reply to d2wa of how EasyList is not obeyed. The "whitelist" is achieved by correct use of AdSense. (See pseudo-code example #3 of how EasyList filter code is never reached for AdSense.) It does not work like uBlock.

Post reply on HN