Live data from Hacker News

Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

wsj.com

391–400 of 504 posts

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#391
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari. Firefox is overwhelmingly dependent on Yahoo for income, and Yahoo is an ad company.

Firefox have done major browser-chrome changes (unremovable buttons) in order to court financial incentives too. FF is my main browser out of habit but with their recent history I don't trust them not to try and sell out their users [again].

Can you be specific?

Overall I feel that Firefox is sufficiently customisable, that it's probably the easiest browser to protect your privacy in and control content. I like Safari, but customisation is harder to do.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#392

At first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would incredibly increase the number of ads blocked. My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use…

I suspect this will lead to ads not being served via the site's code own code, but rather by Chrome overlaying the ads into the site using placeholders defined by the site.

By controlling the ad experience at this level (and this possibly being the only way to avoid being blocked), Google can enforce an ad-experience that is akin to in-feed facebook ads.

It also provides a far greater level of security around the ad unit and a far better level of accurate targeting (cookies don't get used, your login does). These two things together provide a new way to interact / monetise those ad units.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#394
post #217

At first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would incredibly increase the number of ads blocked. My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use…

IMO it could be a dangerous move for them, especially if they mostly block their competitor's ads and land themselves in an antitrust lawsuit or something similar.

I suspect adtech companies may partner to make better ads for consumers.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#395
post #171

At first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would incredibly increase the number of ads blocked. My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use…

It's far more likely that Chrome's ad-blocking feature will be similar to the implementation of content blockers in Safari (introduced at a WWDC 2015 session)[1][2]. The new model for content blockers in Safari is faster and a lot more memory efficient because they're compiled into byte code. Content blockers are also more secure and better for privacy because they have no knowledge of the browsing that users are doi…

It's not really a conspiracy, it's their whole business model. But, I have no opinion on whether the implementation will resemble Safari's or not.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#396
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's far more likely that Chrome's ad-blocking feature will be similar to the implementation of content blockers in Safari (introduced at a WWDC 2015 session)[1][2]. The new model for content blockers in Safari is faster and a lot more memory efficient because they're compiled into byte code. Content blockers are also more secure and better for privacy because they have no knowledge of the browsing that users are doi…

It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for everyone and everything is what will grow their ad business long term, rather than violently shoving as many ads as possible into their users faces as fast as possible. It's also pretty clear that they are capable of pursuing a long term strategy over chasing short-term cash.

I think it is more about destroying the competition and also that they believe that there will be no antitrust enforcement whatseoever in the Trump Administration.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#397
post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is even just a whiff of that, Google will be in very big trouble with competition authorities. So if - and that is a big if - Google goes ahead with this plan, they will have to make absolutely sure that any blocking is based on objective and simple to understand quality criteria.

It doesn't need to be spoken out loud, it's kinda obvious. I too would make it sound like this is totally not the reason. And for the record, I don't think everyone at Google is evil, but I imagine a few managers are in it for the money and not merely the altruistic idea of making ads better.

>It doesn't need to be spoken out loud, it's kinda obvious.

On the contrary, it is completely obvious that Google has very little to gain from shaving a few percentage points off competitors and incur the risk of regulatory action.

The greatest danger they face is ad blockers and a general decline of the Web. If Google is in it for the money they must save the Web from death by advertising.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naw, Google has precedent for this sort of behavior, going so far as removing plugins from their web store and quietly uninstalling them from Chrome with no notification when the plugin interfered with their business model. They actively uninstalled video download plugins without notification to the user a couple years back. Nefarious.

* Download Ublock zip * Enable Developer Options * Add Ublock package zip * Enable in Incognito as well TL;DR: Them removing it would be a dick move, but not end of the world. We can still install any packages we want.

I can say from experience that there are plugins which Chrome actively removes even if installed this way.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#399

At first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would incredibly increase the number of ads blocked. My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use…

I disagree that it's a risky move at all. I have been saying that the first person that can establish a kind of validation of ads will dominate the space. It's only … unfortunately … expected that Google would finally come around to this. They have nothing to loose and everything to win.

Just like you said, they are going to block all the "bad" ads, which will also allow them to control messaging and information access even. We've already seen Google ad network being used as a political tool to undermine and attack ideological opponents. It will really only further enslave the whole internet, communications, and democracy as a whole to Google and further allow them to create a kind of exo-state corporate government that controls what you see and suppress what they don't want you to see for a whole host of reasons, which will even more increasingly become political than they have been.

We have seen it just this last election where Google inserted itself into politics and has been actively working to, undermine ideological opponents by cutting their ad revenue, and is actively involved in propagandizing people where it can through sanctimonious altruism masking the underlying reality that they are censoring on political grounds that side with those they share interests with.

It's quite ironic what is happening these days as the machinations are quite a bit the same as they were in the 1920s-1930s Europe, which led to all sorts of problems including the rise of the very same kind of authoritarianism that today equally claims that hey are acting in the best interest of the people and are sanctimoniously self-righteous. Google does not evil, right? See, we're all fine, because they have our best interest in mind, because they told us so and when I googled snopes for an answer, snopes clearly told me that there was nothing to the claim otherwise.

Post reply on HN