Report: Google will add an ad blocker to all versions of Chrome web browser
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
-93
(104
/
-197)
What are the odds that Chrome will then block other ad blockers as being redundant?
Upvote
235
(252
/
-17)
Then don't use Chrome.
If this is true, how will performance differ from Adblock or Adblock Plus for example?
Upvote
94
(122
/
-28)
Google has to be very careful about this. Because they are both an advertising company and a technology company, Google could get hit for monopolistic and anti-competitive practices. If Google blocks other peoples ads and allows their own, I expect the EU to immediately hit them and hard. Just look at the trouble Microsoft went through and the Browser Ballot.
Upvote
329
(334
/
-5)
"Report: Google will add an ad blocker that blocks all ads except for GoogleAds"
Upvote
97
(122
/
-25)
The writing has been in the wall for a while. I'm running Ublock Origin and Privacy Badger on all my browsers, and I've switched to Firefox on Mobile because Chrome/Android doesn't support extensions.
My guess is that the devil will be in the details: "Ad Blocking" is a vague term. Will it block all ads ? Tracking too ? How well ?
My guess is that the devil will be in the details: "Ad Blocking" is a vague term. Will it block all ads ? Tracking too ? How well ?
Upvote
135
(138
/
-3)
Frankly, this makes perfect sense since bad ads are a plague that's inexorably grinding down the Internet. I put the ads which match the criteria they mentioned in the same category as malware and phishing sites.
It really is a big problem because people expect to be able to consume a lot of web content for free and that means ads. Then people install ad blockers which means that the creators of that web content can't make any money for doing it so they're left with three choices: charge for the content itself, use ads which circumvent ad blockers, or stop producing content.
All three of those choices are bad for the Internet.
I'm completely fine with major web browsers saying "play nice or GTFO" when it comes to ads.
It really is a big problem because people expect to be able to consume a lot of web content for free and that means ads. Then people install ad blockers which means that the creators of that web content can't make any money for doing it so they're left with three choices: charge for the content itself, use ads which circumvent ad blockers, or stop producing content.
All three of those choices are bad for the Internet.
I'm completely fine with major web browsers saying "play nice or GTFO" when it comes to ads.
Upvote
186
(194
/
-8)
I think there's morality issue specifically with adblock: once they got a large userbase, they turned around and asked corps for money to let their ads through. ublock origin doesn't have that issue and as far as I can tell works just as well.
Upvote
144
(149
/
-5)
The open web is dead. Closed Facebook siphoning off huge chunks of the web. Browsers and OSes spying in the name of innovation and competition. ISPs angling for legal ownership of your communications. Whatever the web started as feels stupidly naive at this point. Governments and corporations and their proxy cartel groups all the way.
Upvote
49
(79
/
-30)
let me elaborate: if google is getting paid ad allowed if not blocked.
Upvote
-18
(16
/
-34)
This *could* be awesome if (a) Google makes it clear what sort of ads and behavior would fall into the sights of a Google-powered ad blocker and (b) advertisers clean up their act to fall in line.
I don't want to block ads at all, but web developers have so badly bloated their pages with rotten ads and trackers that I do and give no real thought to the consequences. If Google pushing out an ad blocker changes some of that behavior, I'll happily turn it off and let ads pour in. Everybody can win here.
I don't want to block ads at all, but web developers have so badly bloated their pages with rotten ads and trackers that I do and give no real thought to the consequences. If Google pushing out an ad blocker changes some of that behavior, I'll happily turn it off and let ads pour in. Everybody can win here.
Upvote
88
(90
/
-2)
Be interesting to see what is actually done here. It could force some better advertising behavior on websites....of course this is another advertising company controlling over 50 percent of the market of viewers of said advertising...
From a long term strategic standpoing it might not be the worst thing in the world for Google to spin off Chrome (& support it and other browsers) so they don't have monopoly and conflict issues till the end of days.
From a long term strategic standpoing it might not be the worst thing in the world for Google to spin off Chrome (& support it and other browsers) so they don't have monopoly and conflict issues till the end of days.
Upvote
31
(31
/
0)
On the one hand this seems like a good idea. Even millions of people using adblockers isn't much of an impact on advertisers. Google has the clout (on several fronts) to force advertisers to stop using ads that cause problems.
On the other hand there is an obvious conflict of interest here. I'd prefer an adblocker designed by some sort of coalition of group rather than controlled entire by Google.
On the other hand there is an obvious conflict of interest here. I'd prefer an adblocker designed by some sort of coalition of group rather than controlled entire by Google.
Upvote
43
(45
/
-2)
lets see google gets paid for better search placement and can get paid for what ads to annoy you with. um yea i dont expect them not to be evil here.
Upvote
-15
(7
/
-22)
I don't think there's anything nefarious going on with this, bad ads affect their business line, and if this was done in a partnership with other competing ad platforms, it would be rather transparent. Plus the people who make chrome probably hate annoying ads too (I would bet money quite a few use ublock origin). I would like built in adblock on chrome (it is actually the best android browser), but it has to be transparent is the thing.
Upvote
23
(31
/
-8)
You want to see everyone leave the platform, that's a great way to do it.
I consider ad blocking a vital part of a basic anti-malware diet. Ad networks have proven to be completely unable to police themselves in any way.
It works BETTER than adblock ever did, and yeah, no monetizing.
Upvote
87
(87
/
0)
Meh. I'm kind of okay with this.
What I'm wondering is how sites like Forbes, which use adblock countermeasures, will deal with it. If a site comes up and says "you can't view this site with your adblocker turned on," I don't browse the site. I will not be extorted into dealing with the crap that infests the web advertising ecosystem just because some web site thinks they can't live without my ad views.
Besides countermeasures, my favorite pet peeve is ads disguised as editorial content or mixed in with editorial content so that you can't really tell the difference without looking hard. It's probably too much to hope that those are going away.
Regardless, Forbes and the LA Times can't simply turn away every Chrome user. So if this means I can leave an ad-blocker turned on, get rid of the worst of the annoying ads, and also not have to deal with countermeasures whining about how I'm depriving them of their income, then I'm happy to see it happen.
As long as this doesn't mean Chrome will start blocking other ad-blockers. I still believe firmly in consumer choice, so if I want to continue to use AdBlock, then I should have that choice.
What I'm wondering is how sites like Forbes, which use adblock countermeasures, will deal with it. If a site comes up and says "you can't view this site with your adblocker turned on," I don't browse the site. I will not be extorted into dealing with the crap that infests the web advertising ecosystem just because some web site thinks they can't live without my ad views.
Besides countermeasures, my favorite pet peeve is ads disguised as editorial content or mixed in with editorial content so that you can't really tell the difference without looking hard. It's probably too much to hope that those are going away.
Regardless, Forbes and the LA Times can't simply turn away every Chrome user. So if this means I can leave an ad-blocker turned on, get rid of the worst of the annoying ads, and also not have to deal with countermeasures whining about how I'm depriving them of their income, then I'm happy to see it happen.
As long as this doesn't mean Chrome will start blocking other ad-blockers. I still believe firmly in consumer choice, so if I want to continue to use AdBlock, then I should have that choice.
Upvote
71
(75
/
-4)
I think this is a great idea.
I'm surprised that it wasn't touched on that this should help with malicious ads on otherwise reputable pages. Aren't advertisements a popular attack vector for introducing malware and viruses to unsuspecting visitors?
I don't mind seeing the noninvasive ads from Google and other advertisers that ABP allows by default. After all, websites need ad revenue to stay in business, so I don't mind them putting some ads up in exchange for reading an article like this one, for free.
It's always a smart idea to run something like ABP in conjunction with NoScript to help protect your computer while browsing the interwebs.
I'm surprised that it wasn't touched on that this should help with malicious ads on otherwise reputable pages. Aren't advertisements a popular attack vector for introducing malware and viruses to unsuspecting visitors?
I don't mind seeing the noninvasive ads from Google and other advertisers that ABP allows by default. After all, websites need ad revenue to stay in business, so I don't mind them putting some ads up in exchange for reading an article like this one, for free.
It's always a smart idea to run something like ABP in conjunction with NoScript to help protect your computer while browsing the interwebs.
Upvote
12
(16
/
-4)
While Google is definitely a big enough company to have a "left hand, meet right hand" situation between their browser and ad departments, I think it's a case of somebody has to be the adult in the room, especially on mobile phone ads. So, so, so many media outlets have almost comically over-the-top levels of ads on phones and tablets to make their sites unusable, if not outright hard lock Chrome.
Upvote
47
(48
/
-1)
Yeah, the 90s was totally the heyday of online content.
Let's not be asinine here. The fact that people can easily make money from putting stuff online for free has enormously increased the number of people creating content.
Upvote
27
(41
/
-14)
"but the move to block even more ads would still be a counter-intuitive one". It isn't counter-intuitive at all. Want your ads to appear? Better advertise through us.
I would expect the EU to claim "anti-competition / monopoly" in about 10 seconds.
I would expect the EU to claim "anti-competition / monopoly" in about 10 seconds.
Upvote
5
(18
/
-13)
You obviously missed the dot-com bubble. For a while, the media was predicting the end of the Internet...
But the Internet recovered, and we started seeing a renaissance of web based content, much of it ad funded.
However, I think that the real issue with online advertising was that until well after the turn of the century, the web was still a hobby. I don't think anyone really took it seriously until YouTube and blogs started started cutting into network TV and printed news revenue.
And yes, the drop in ad revenue did cause a crash in the ad-driven content industry not that long ago. I'm going to say it happened maybe around 2010, although it could have been a bit sooner or later. That was mostly a case of VC money running out and web sites realizing they had to make a profit on their own merits, rather than investment money.
Upvote
16
(18
/
-2)
I didn't say that. And I'm not sure that's how it'll turn out. Google is probably in the best position to work out an ad load that's acceptable to both content creators and users. Freeriders will want 0 ads all the time, but then their sites will die out or turn subs-only.
I think the situation is rather like TV. In France, we get 2 ad segments per hour, with a max duration of 10 mins combined I think. That's a bit of a bother, but it doesn't utterly ruin TV-watching. When I was in the US, it seemed there were ads between each scene of a movie. It made movies unwatchable, I stopped watching US TV and rented tapes instead (that was before streaming)
I the same vein, I'm OK with smallish, relevant, lightweight, static ads in a fixed location. I'm not OK with most of the page being taken up by an autoplay video that freezes up my phone.
Upvote
28
(33
/
-5)
I can see lawsuits from ad networks that get blocked by Google already. They'll say Google is abusing its position in browsers to cut out competition in the ad space which is exactly how this looks.
Upvote
32
(33
/
-1)
No, this could be awesome if it's open-source and at least a few folks that don't work at Google also have write access to the repo to merge features. Otherwise it's only a way for Google to strongarm everyone else. Which might be okay. At least they don't tell you you have to buy certain brand hardware. Ahem, fruit company.
Upvote
-18
(5
/
-23)
And then Google will point to the Coalition for Better Ads standard.
Upvote
15
(24
/
-9)
If Google weren't an ad provider I'd cheer them on, cause it sounds like they're trying to provide the regulation that's so desperately needed in web ads.
But there are so many $reasons for them to start blocking ads that aren't egregious while allowing ads of their own that are.
But there are so many $reasons for them to start blocking ads that aren't egregious while allowing ads of their own that are.
Upvote
21
(23
/
-2)
Can we talk about how awful those mobile ads are that make your phone vibrate and give you prompts when you try to back out of them? Like, they should be totally banned from smart devices.
Upvote
70
(70
/
0)
- Status