Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but there are probably other standards that Google's ads don't meet, and Google isn't using those.
Like tracking of user data.
Is this sarcastic?
Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
491–500 of 504 posts
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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"…
Privacy really isn't transactional, it's a ecological issue. There's no way for you to make that decision without (as a group) impacting others. A choice to not use Google or Facebook can now be crippling for some people, and fairly bothersome for most.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't shake the feeling that virtually every product decision at Google is made by an engineer.
Is that bad? Or is it just different that what we are used to?
It's potentially idiotic in a context where there are non-engineering concerns at play, such as compliance, law, marketing, PR, etc. It exposes them to massive potential liability.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#494Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be so, but I don't see it primarily as a problem with Google. I see it as a problem with the European Union, which is too much about French policies and politics and way of political operation. Perhaps electing Le Pen might actually do some good to it by forcing others to change?
I think parent meant if LePen is elected, there won't be a EU to cause trouble in the long run?
EU is an extremely weak political construction if the change of president in one member country, via democratic election and staying in democratic system, nullifies the whole union.
A democratic political union must be based on stronger foundations than just having a couple of sister parties sharing the power in turns.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#496I like the idea but only because FF will likey copy them without the conflict of interest.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#497Ads 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'.
Some web users think they have a "right" to say how websites work.
Big sites take countless man hours to produce and maintain.
For the site I've worked on for almost a decade 95 of 100 user comments are totally off base and they don't understand the basics of how things work.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always suspected the reason we never got extensions in mobile Chrome is that they didn't want the ad blockers. I wasn't aware that Firefox mobile started supporting them. Going to give it a try.
Just want to point out that's there is a really old issue for this: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=113111 It's been assigned to some unknown person since 2015. Though I'm not so sure the reason for it's delay in coming to Android isn't technical rather than organizational. Brave for Android is based off of Chromium and it didn't have extensions either. It sounds like the way extension APIs were…
> Though I don't understand why since Firefox mobile extensions are based off a similarly designed system (Jetpack) to Chromes.
Moreover, Mozilla is currently actually switching to an extended version of Chrome's extension API (which Mozilla calls "WebExtensions"). They had no problem implementing that on Android Firefox. Obviously, yes, there are APIs that just don't make sense on a mobile browser, but you have a well-defined API, so just blacklist extensions that require these APIs.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#499Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love to hear/read the dialogue that occurred when the first person pitched this idea at Google. > Also since people wouldn't use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely. I'm sure a few might, and it'll likely discourage others from entering the market as well. But I do think that open source alternatives would live on and continue to be used if your guess is correct. And…
Ublock Origin is extremely popular and it's open source model keeps it from playing favorites with some "acceptable" ads.
AdBlock Plus is also open-source. Same license as uBlock Origin and everything.
They just haven't pissed off anyone enough to get a big fork going. Or their code just wasn't good enough, as obviously uBlock Origin is currently doing the same and was written from scratch.
Re: Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
#500Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, we all have to eat, so i make a conscientious effort not to block ads, unless they are abusive (in particular autoplay and popups). To make most commercial websites usable, I simply disabled Autoplay in FF which silenced the most abusive screaming video ads and made surfing the web pleasant again. (about:config and set media.autoplay.enabled;false)
> Yep, we all have to eat, so i make a conscientious effort not to block ads, unless they are abusive I find this a really weird attitude that I just can't get behind. "Here, let me give you some money by watching something that will try to convince me to buy something that I wouldn't have otherwise bought. Just doing my civic duty here!" That's what it sounds like to me. You want to help someone else, so you agree t…
Banksy:
"You owe the companies nothing. You especially don't owe them any courtesy. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs."
"...any advertisement in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours, it belongs to you... its yours to take, rearrange and re use. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head."
Banksy is to "attentional integrity" what Stallman is to software freedom: radical-sounding, heretical to big business, and very very right.