Improving advertising on the web
blog.chromium.orgIt's a last measure for Google since otherwise the percent of people using ad blockers (that block all ads) will become so large that Google will crippled beyond recovery.
There hope is that if a blocker is built in natively, new users won't install a third party blocker. And there blocker will allow most all their ads, but block all competitor ad's that are especially annoying. And people will presumably hate ads less.
This will most likely backfire since everyone who never considered installing an ad blocker will now have it by default.
Then eventually, Google will without question eventually block third party blockers. They will say they unsafe, negatively affect performance, or insert any excuse. Then everyone will be stuck viewing all their google ads.
If Google were to block blockers now, they would be destroyed by the public, but assume that if they offer a blocker that there maybe less backlash and hoping people won't leave for Safari or Firefox.
Google's stock is up from 735 this time last year to 988 today. They're not fighting with their backs against the wall. They're in the middle of the ring, taking all comers.
Ugh, I don't like this. Why is one of the worlds largest advertiser deciding what ads will be displayed, and which ads wont. Seems kind of like leaving the fox guarding the hen house.
They're making a decision based on pretty measurable psychometric variables (flashing, size), not content. They included in their position a commitment that they will not serve their own ads on such sites, so they stand to lose if the publisher commits to losing. It's the publisher's choice if they want to degrade the quality of the open web by overselling psychological manipulation techniques that advertisers obviously want to employ. But Google is exercising its right to exit that market.
I can imagine a statement like: "We block all the annoying ads, and therefore there is no legitimate reason to use ad block, therefore we are forcing you to view ads because now they are all relevant".
This is precisely the problem with Google operating the dominant browser on the planet. They are always going to be accused of having a conflict of interest; the conversation itself is the problem.
IMO, if Google's goal is to really improve the web experience, it would be much better if Chrome was spun off into a non-profit of its own, and not controlled directly by Google.
That won't happen because Google needs Chrome to control the platform where most ads are delivered and that helps keep Google dominate.
Yeah... the reason why it smells like a conflict of interest is because it is a conflict of interest.
It's not entirely clear to me how even Chrome can enforce this, though any reduction in crappy behavior is probably a net win.
Frankly I want a cap on downloads of random junk for any reason, ads or otherwise. Chrome should set strict limits on sizes of scripts, number of domains, amount of data, etc. and require user opt-in only where it makes sense (e.g. "I need to watch a video").
Google execs sounded the brown note :D
I installed ad-blockers on all relatives computers after those "you have a virus" full-page ads that talked my mom into calling someone, handing over her credit card, and giving them remote control over her computer.
I see no reason to remove them now; what's the consensus on when chrome starts blocking competing ad-blockers?
If this ad-blocking is baked into Chrome on Android and Chrome on Android doesn't get extensions, then Chrome on Android essentially has a built in ad-blocker and blocks all competing ad-blockers. Chrome on Android currently has no extensions.
If you want to block ads within the browser on Android, Firefox + uBlock is your best bet.
Firefox.
But I very seriously doubt that's going to happen.
Far too little, many years too late.
At this point, I can't imagine any development that would make me substantially revise my approach to online advertising and tracking, which is - block everything, preferably at the router level. I don't know many tech literate users who think differently.
And for any relatives and friends who ask me to install their computers, I set up adblockers by default. Those who notice (most people, actually) are usually between happy and ecstatic.
Main discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14463732.
> Due to these poor ad experiences, the usage of extensions that block ads across the web continues to rise, up about 30% from just last year. This reduces the ability for publishers to continue creating free content and threatens the sustainability of the web ecosystem.
Is this the first step to remove ad blockers from Chrome? I guess that 30% also affects Google.
I don't think so. To me, that simply reads as Google providing support for their claim that users are increasingly frustrated by "poor ad experiences".
> Advertising is a critical component of the web, keeping content open and free for everyone.
This is repeated often. I'm sure it is true to a degree, but to what degree?
Many of the pages that I read have:
- no advertising at all (HN for instance, MDN, etc.),
- advertising that is very easy to ignore (e.g. BoingBoing), or
- content that I can live without
I imagine that this will make some new WTF moments in web development, when my code will be considered as "bad ad" and removed from DOM.
Anyone here know a good alternative of chrome based on V8? I personally still can't bring myself back to FF due to V8.
Are we giving censorship a new name now?
First the search results, now the ads. When the users?
Google is reacting very slowly to their declining ad revenue model in the face of social media and influencers, they are stuck with a degraded experience/platform.
It will be interesting to watch how they are going to salvage their ad network with a much more ad-aware and a younger demographic with purchasing power.
Time to pivot, but I doubt this will work or the recent chrome ad free beta.