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

Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 504 posts

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#431

Post by freehunter »

nojvek wrote: post #117
whyleyc wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be laudable to try and lead an "industry-wide" effort to clean up ads but it stinks of hypocrisy when Google repeatedly allows all shades of garbage to permeate its' own Adsense network. We talked about this only a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14094083

I hope this comes as an extension that can be turned off. E.g having flash pre-installed in chrome but having ability to turn it off. I expect reasonable defaults but some knobs to control the ads I want. If chrome team who thinks about the world and ads team who thinks about $$$ are total separate entities who don't influence each other for special interests then I applaud the effort. I hope this is done in the open…

Chrome doesn't even allow you to control if a single click in the URL bar highlights the entire URL or just drops a cursor even though the behavior in the same application is inconsistent between different platforms. I have my doubts they'd allow you to fiddle with knobs about advertising preferences.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#432

Post by freehunter »

greggman wrote: post #154
amygdyl wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work tangentially to adtech, started with publishing when a xacto knife and bromides might be a handy skill still... I still cannot wrap my head around publishers apparently disinterested in manually clearing ad copy for press approval. Can anyone delineate a non obvious history to this complete laissez faire?

the ny times maybe has the staff to do that (or used to). Joe's blog does not. back in print media each ad had to be placed by hand. it also had the aquired though manual labor. those things seriously limited the number of people publishing since the majority of your time was spent not making content for your zine but instead chasing down ads. the internet changed that. here's a spot on my page . fill it with ads ple…

If Joe doesn't have time or staff to make sure his only means of generating income is not offensive or hostile to his customers, he doesn't have time or staff to run a business.

Imagine if a store said they didn't have enough staff to QA the products they sell, so they shouldn't be blamed for injuries related to their crappy products. It's 2017, you can't say you didn't known lawn darts were dangerous and you really shouldn't admit you didn't know your store was even selling lawn darts.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#433

Post by bmurphy1976 »

jaipilot747 wrote: post #269
bmurphy1976 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, disable javascript by default. It's really easy to turn it on per-site using the brave button in the toolbar. The single best improvement I've made to my mobile browsing experience in years wasn't getting a new faster phone, it was installing Brave and disabling javascript.

For Firefox on Android I've been using JavaScript Toggle Enabled [1] for a while. Does what it says on the tin. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/toggle-javasc...

I personally find Firefox way too janky to use on my mobile device. It's getting better but still needs some time in the oven.

Brave is a Chrome fork so for those of us who prefer Chrome it's a better option (for now anyway).

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#435

Post by freehunter »

rmc wrote: post #337
bitmapbrother wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google isn't defining anything unilaterally - the Coalition for Better Ads is. https://www.betterads.org/standards/

That's an industry body from big advertisers, like Google. I'm pretty sure "Don't store user data" isn't included in that "standard"

What we need is a Sarbanes-Oxley for the Internet. If you track users and store their data, you have to be Internet-SOX compliant to prove you're handling it in a responsible way. Especially with the anti-fraud protections on credit cards these days, storing PII and browsing history is a lot more dangerous than a credit card breach.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#436

Post by jhatax »

How many prognosticators among us think that Google will end up buying one of the big ad-blocking companies out there? If acquired, this would be a coup for Wladimir Palant and folks like him. Currently, Adblock Plus allows us to uncheck the "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" option. If Google were to acquire said company (or similar offering), this ability to disallow non-intrusive advertising will be either hidden or removed entirely. If Google's properties are the only ones "allowed" through the filter, that's another case of monopoly power. Time will tell.

There is a silver lining for users here. If Google does go down this route, Firefox and Edge will eventually follow suit. This somewhat concerted action against intrusive ads will put a lot of pressure on ad agencies and content providers, which could be the impetus they need to rethink their ad delivery strategy to be more user-friendly.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#437

Post by _oadw »

gorhill wrote: post #420

Ads are a subset of a larger issue: the out of control data mining and tracking[1]. Focusing only on whether an ad is visually pleasant or not does not address the larger issue -- which larger issue is the foremost reason people should install a content blocker, to get back in the control seat of their user agent . [1] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMB…

If we stop out of control tracking and the ads model, how do we stop all content from going behind a paywall? Asking because at least Eyeo makes an attempt at keeping the web free but uBlock Origin seems to go for a scorched earth approach that doesn't seem sustainable.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#438

Post by wheelerwj »

TechRemarker wrote: post #140

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…

> Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable.

this is exactly how it would go. This is anything but benevolent, this is another one of googles blatant anti-trust maneuvers to force you deeper into their walled-garden.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#439

Post by libria »

artursapek wrote: post #49
libria wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposite, I would say. Google has strict guidelines for ad creative content and polices its ads as well; they're almost certainly above their own bar. So this is essentially threatening to block everyone else, or at least those behaving poorly.

> So this is essentially threatening to block everyone else I think this is what he meant by conflict of interest

Hm yeah, a moment after I hit submit I realized this. So I guess I made the parents point.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#440

Post by MarkMc »

gorhill wrote: post #420

Ads are a subset of a larger issue: the out of control data mining and tracking[1]. Focusing only on whether an ad is visually pleasant or not does not address the larger issue -- which larger issue is the foremost reason people should install a content blocker, to get back in the control seat of their user agent . [1] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMB…

For you it's 'out of control'. For me it's 'the price I'm happy to pay to get what I want'.
Post reply on HN