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

471–480 of 504 posts

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#471

Post by joshyi »

dceddia wrote: post #411
onion2k wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I think that guess is wrong. I think Google will block their own ads. There are a few reasons why; 1. They're not stupid. The amount of trust lost in a move like that would be immense. It wouldn't be worthwhile. 2. They don't need to. They just need…

> Other ad blocking technology will also block Google's tracking mechanisms, and they really don't want that to happen. Good point. After using uBlock Origin for a while now, "ads" have become synonymous with "tracking scripts" to me. I'd bet Google's adblocker wouldn't block Google Analytics from running, like uBlock does.

Definitely they won't. I'm sticking with uBlock.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#472

Post by _jal »

ouid wrote: post #384
tyingq wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also doesn't hurt that Google will be able to control what is considered an "ad" and what isn't. Are Google product listings ads? Google flight results? Featured destinations?

If you request it, it's not an ad. I think that's a pretty reasonable line to draw.

That's like saying if you didn't ask for it, food is not food. You appear to be defining the nature of a thing by your internal mental state, and that only works with a relatively small number of certain things.

What makes an ad an ad has nothing to do with potential-viewer intent. Lack of viewer intent is what makes it an _unwanted_ ad.

I happen to have a certain ad framed and on my wall at home. I spent money on the ad, and more money to frame it. Pretty sure that meets the definition of 'request'.

Guess what? It is still an ad.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#473

Post by _jal »

yomly wrote: post #296
mseebach wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bit like how Bezos said if something is going to canniblize your business, you may as well be the one doing it

Pretty sure that line predates anyone paying attention to Bezos. It is a natural implication of the disruption model of product design, and was discussed heavily in terms of changes in the computer industry before the web existed, let alone Amazon.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#474

Post by flashman »

stephenr wrote: post #415
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…

The article clearly says it's about blocking "bad" ads, as deemed so by the ad industry. > The ad-blocking feature, which could be switched on by default within Chrome, would filter out certain online ad types deemed to provide bad experiences for users as they move around the web. > Unacceptable ad types would be those recently defined by the Coalition for Better Ads, an industry group that released a list of ad sta…

"Nice ad you've got there... be a shame if something were to happen to it..."

Implication: Want your ads shown to people? Don't risk another provider, serve them through Google.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#475

Post by stephenr »

flashman wrote: post #474
stephenr wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article clearly says it's about blocking "bad" ads, as deemed so by the ad industry. > The ad-blocking feature, which could be switched on by default within Chrome, would filter out certain online ad types deemed to provide bad experiences for users as they move around the web. > Unacceptable ad types would be those recently defined by the Coalition for Better Ads, an industry group that released a list of ad sta…

"Nice ad you've got there... be a shame if something were to happen to it..." Implication: Want your ads shown to people? Don't risk another provider, serve them through Google.

I don't think it's quite as nefarious as that.

Essentially, I believe Google and a subset of their industry competitors (other ad networks) have two goals here:

1. to stem the losses imposed by 100% ad/tracking blockers, by providing a default blocker that deals with very obnoxious ads that might prompt average users to install one of the existing ad blockers.

2. to reduce their need to pay protection money to AdBlock plus etc.

So, if you happen to be using ads that are overly obnoxious (popups, autoplaying videos, etc) then yeah, your message is basically what they're saying, but not because it's non-google, just because it's making the other ad networks look bad.

I don't know how they'll implement it technically, but the fact that they are not talking about the WebKit-style content blocking using compiled pattern lists means they probably have little interest in benefitting end-users (webkit content blockers give better privacy, performance, battery life etc, compared to traditional "run this code every time a website loads" blockers)

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#477

Post by rainbowmverse »

dceddia wrote: post #411
onion2k wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I think that guess is wrong. I think Google will block their own ads. There are a few reasons why; 1. They're not stupid. The amount of trust lost in a move like that would be immense. It wouldn't be worthwhile. 2. They don't need to. They just need…

> Other ad blocking technology will also block Google's tracking mechanisms, and they really don't want that to happen. Good point. After using uBlock Origin for a while now, "ads" have become synonymous with "tracking scripts" to me. I'd bet Google's adblocker wouldn't block Google Analytics from running, like uBlock does.

You can get a plugin to block Google Analytics right from Google: https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#478

Post by MarkMc »

rodovich wrote: post #470
MarkMc wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that approach is that you are going against the wishes of the person who produced the website. To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. If I don't agree to the terms of use for a website I simply won't use it.

> To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. I agree. That's why I want a say in how my data is consumed.

Person A: "I created a web page. I'll let you view it if you also look at this advertisement"

Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just view the page without the advertisement"

-------------------

Person A: "I've built this car. I'll let you drive it if you keep the speed under 60 miles per hour"

Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just drive your car and go at whatever speed I like"

-------------------

Person A: "I baked a cake. I'll let you eat it if you give me $5"

Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just eat the cake and give you nothing"

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#479

Post by sqeaky »

_jal wrote: post #473
yomly wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit like how Bezos said if something is going to canniblize your business, you may as well be the one doing it

Pretty sure that line predates anyone paying attention to Bezos. It is a natural implication of the disruption model of product design, and was discussed heavily in terms of changes in the computer industry before the web existed, let alone Amazon.

None of that changes the usefulness or correctness of the idea.

If a new tech comes along that destroys your business, you should invest in that tech or you risk becoming blockbuster while Netflix rises. If Blockbuster had taken its opportunity to buy netflix or build a competitor it would still be in business today.

Same thing with all those oil companies becoming energy companies. Solar and wind are displacing coal and oil, and all the big energy companies are in on it. They don't look at risk of going under soon.

Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser

#480

Post by cat199 »

mseebach wrote: post #456
_jal wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's pretty clear that Google's strategy is that making the web better for Google FIFY. I have no idea why the belief that "what's good for Google is good for the internet" persists - those days are long past. Google is best understood as a huge surveillance operation with bait services attached. The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by…

I didn't say "what's good for Google is good for the internet", I said, in effect, "what's good for the internet is good for Google". And please do refrain from fixing my posts for me, I am perfectly capable of expressing my opinions without your assistance.

> what's good for the internet is good for Google

This presumes complete congruence between these two sets, which is precisely what is being criticized above.

How exactly is:

" The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. "

If true, good for 'the internet' in general, rather than being good for Google primarily with some related good and harm for 'the internet' ?

Post reply on HN