Chrome will soon ad-block an entire website if it shows abusive ads
theverge.comIf they cared about their users then they would follow suite with Firefox, Safari, Opera, and even IE to block intrusive tracking [1]. Instead they take this anti-competitive action and increase the amount of tracking by auto-logging users into their browsers.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/11/google-chromes-users-t...
With their tight grip on the internet ad market, this is trundling dangerously close to anti-competitive behavior. They must feel very secure in their lobbying efforts.
As the article alluded to at the end there, this is yet another reminder that Google has way too much control. It's easy to hop on the bandwagon without reading into the implications here because almost everyone hates instrusive ads, but letting one company decide what does and doesn't get to be content on the web isn't healthy for a free internet.
The internet is in an uncomfortable position.
On one hand, users hate more intrusive ads.
On the other hand, if some people on the internet show intrusive ads while others dont, it's the people who show intrusive ads who will end up making most profit.
Google is trying to use their monopoly position to break out of that cycle.
Google's primary business is selling ads but they ad-block any website they consider "abusive"? How does that make sense? What stops them blocking all ads except Google ads?
Given the separation between chrome and ad words, I think the abusive ad could even be from google..
> How does that make sense?
Lack of regulation has led to Google erecting its own rules and Chinese walls that may or may not hold up to eventual challenges?
> What stops them blocking all ads except Google ads?
Google specifically wants to prevent its own ads on a web site marked abusive or otherwise imperfect. In general, Google is willing to forgo space to try to guarantee what brand marketers want. If some large brands stop bidding on a class of ads over any concern, Google looses a lot more value in its real estate than if it has less real estate.
> Given the separation between chrome and ad words, I think the abusive ad could even be from google..
I'm not trying to get investment advice or trying to manipulate the market, this is an honest question. How should investors react in situations like this? If Google Chrome's this new feature ends up being very effective, Chrome will be more successful but Google will have less ad revenue (possibly). Is GOOG safer now or what?
This has no negative effect on Google- but it is anti-competitive. If you read the title again you’ll see it’s only about blocking abusive ads- not abusive websites in general. Google’s own advertising will not trigger this since google itself has already approved them. There is a 30 day review period for website owners to remove said abusive ads- so you can rest assured knowing that google will not flag a website to remove google ads. This new feature is definitely not an ad blocker. It’s much more inline with a competition blocker or even a censorship tool. If not anti-competitive, perhaps it’s come from new work being done for China.
Porn websites would hate Chrome and google!