Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
wsj.com
wsj.com
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 their built in blocker rather than downloading a third party extension which would highly likely block there ads. And if people have a built in blocker that blocks the mostly bad ads, the people would start to hate ads less and be okay with 'good ads'. Also since people wouldn't use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely.
It's a very risky move on Google's part, so would be a bit surprised if it happens. But doing nothing, is equally if not more risky in the long run for there business model.
The new model for content blockers in Safari is faster and a lot more memory efficient because they're compiled into byte code. Content blockers are also more secure and better for privacy because they have no knowledge of the browsing that users are doing. The content-blocking rules are only provided by third parties.
Google is probably doing this because it makes their browser faster—not because of some wild conspiracy to show more advertisements.
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Ge...
Google rarely makes unilateral decisions from the top down to product teams. They mostly operate independently.
> 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 your guess does seem very plausible.
– Maybe we could act as gatekeepers so our competitors have to go through us to advertise on our browser? We could wrap it as "only letting in the nice ads" or whatever…
– Brilliant!
I don't want to block all ads
I want an ad blocker that protects me from popunder (is there any point to those ?) popups, autoplay videos, ad walls and other shitty ads that make my experience awful.
I don't want an adblocker that blocks everything by default and where I have to manually white list all the sites I consult regularly.
I already spent a while on some really good blogs before realizing that adblock was killing all their ads for no reason.
I recall reading that the original intention of popunder ads was to provide a degree of separation between the site content and the ad, as you see the ad. isolated rather than directly next to the site content. By doing so, the ad. provider has to worry less about their brand appearing next to content they may find objectionable.
Their modus operandi appears to be (1) launch edgy experimental stuff, (2) forget it exists, (3) be reminded it exists, (4) ruin it by killing it or rewriting it.
This is why I'm not going back to Chrome and not going to stop using ad blocker extensions and the network wide ad-blocker at home.
It's not even difficult to do so, by eg. serving pages from a Google-controlled CloudFlare-like proxy service and/or a high-profile Google-style HTML-to-JavaScript encoder. Google's AMP project shows they're willing to throw the decentralized web under the bus.
The real question is: are you ok with ad-financed web sites in general, but have a problem with tracking (like me)? If so, we should really come up with a community-driven criteria for Acceptable Ads, or should disable un-vetted/not-whitelisted JavaScript alltogether.
I don't mind ordinary display adds, I even like them in the sense that I like a web model that's sustainable.
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)
> 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 standards in March. According to those standards, ad formats such as pop-ups, auto-playing video ads with sound and “prestitial” ads with countdown timers are deemed to be “beneath a threshold of consumer acceptability.”
Implication: Want your ads shown to people? Don't risk another provider, serve them through Google.
By controlling the ad experience at this level (and this possibly being the only way to avoid being blocked), Google can enforce an ad-experience that is akin to in-feed facebook ads.
It also provides a far greater level of security around the ad unit and a far better level of accurate targeting (cookies don't get used, your login does). These two things together provide a new way to interact / monetise those ad units.
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 to make it switched off by default and 90% of users won't ever see it or use it. Only people who are interested will seek it out, and those people are already seeking ad-blocking extensions.
3. Other browsers are implementing it. Google need to include it to stop users who are interested in that feature switching browser.
4. Google need data. They get value from tracking people even if they're not seeing adverts. By blocking the ads specifically, even their own adverts, they still get to track users and derive value from that data. Other ad blocking technology will also block Google's tracking mechanisms, and they really don't want that to happen.
5. Given the fact they have a effective monopoly on adverts on the main web the lost revenue from blocked ads will have a bigger impact on their competitors than them. Google can afford to lose far more ad impressions than the next, much smaller network. They can block their own ads and still drive their competitors out of business. That said, I don't think Google are evil enough to do that. I'm just saying they don't need to let their own ads through if the plan is to kill off the competition.
The ad-blocking they're talking about implementing won't block every ad; they said as much. It'll only block the malicious or annoying ads. Google could block those on it's own network already (maybe they already do!). They'll start block them in the Chrome ad-blocking code. That means they'll block their own ads if adSense is serving something that fails their test. They might even use the same "is this ad bad for the user?" heuristics that they use on their servers, effectively meaning Chrome users can benefit from the work they've done in detecting bad adverts even on sites where the site owner has chosen a different ad network. I think that's a good thing.
Whether we'll ever actually see the result of when it comes to an adSense advert is a separate question - it's in Google's interest to block a bad ad at the origin and send a different one instead so they still get paid. That would mean Chrome never actually blocks an adSense advert because they know exactly what won't be displayed and never send anything that would be blocked. I still see that as Google blocking ads on their own network though, just farther up the chain.
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.
They will probably clearly post criteria for what makes an ad acceptable or not and state that Chrome will block it if it doesn't meet them. Or maybe Chrome will show them but somehow punish the webmaster like they do to sites that don't use HTTPS or have mobile friendly pages.
So if it's any good at blocking Google ads, it costs them money.
If it blocks ads other than Google ones well, and allows Google ones to display, then they run the risk of lawsuits or antitrust action.
Probably a good call. I've actually suggested they do this before. I doubt it made it to them given it was on a private forum. It's amusing to see it happening, though. It's an extension of monopolistic practices where one blocks out all competition to give their own self an advantage.
this is exactly how it would go. This is anything but benevolent, this is another one of googles blatant anti-trust maneuvers to force you deeper into their walled-garden.
What? By know, people are accustomed to Google flip flopping on key decisions; this will be just another instance.
Google is a frigging AD MONOPOLY ... its their major business for crying out loud. And the same company that controls a HUGE portion of all the Internet Ad business is creating an "Ad Blocker".
And this doesn't ring any bells anywhere?
No friend, they are not trying to put "ad blocker" companies out of business. They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business.
Bad ads ruin it for Google. They teach users to mentally block ALL ads. It's like people abusing antibiotics and building a resistance.
This.
Internet is creating massive monopolies that are gathering an immense power that allow them to kill any other company that tries to compete with them. It's starting to be scary...
Google already has what, 90% marketshare? They don't need to put their competitors out of business and would gain very little from doing so (their real competition is probably Facebook and they're fundamentally much harder to apply an adblocker to, since they control both the content and the advertising). Google do need to stop the existential threat to the whole industry that adblockers represent.
A concrete example: Chrome is in a position to block those who use canvas/webgl fingerprinting for user tracking, and Google's ad business can avoid being blocked by not doing that.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, scummy ad companies.
Also it is easier to block google ads with 3rd party. Since ridiculous ads will be blocked natively, performance will be better I think.
Adblock Plus, the most popular adblocker, does not block Google ads by default, because they are considered non-intrusive.
I like this approach. It punishes site owners for running malicious or badly-behaved ads. I think this is a step forward. I hate blocking ads across the board - I just want to stop the intrusive and dangerous variety. I can tolerate the rest.
We talked about this only a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14094083
To speculate on just one possible strategy:
- First order of business, crush Ad Block plus' pay to play business. Possibly just by entering the market with resources, IP, and channel that would overwhelm them.
- Continue on this path until Google is the leader and standard setter, beating everyone on price
- Start to innovate around adding higher value pay to play features, prioritization, options, etc, until it becomes a business with a decent margin.
- Decide whether to wage all out ware with blockers that don't participate in a revenue share program. The war would be multi-pronged with technical, political, and PR fronts. A large team would work 24/7 to instantly defeat blocker updates in an effort to wear them down. Lobbyists would press hard to legislate and control ad-blocking to "protect" content creators. PR would enlist high profile loved content creators, show how much we love their work, and that now, they are forced to live in a cardboard box due to your ad-blocking.
If 60 Billion in revenue is threatened, how does it play out any nicer than this?
I still cannot wrap my head around publishers apparently disinterested in manually clearing ad copy for press approval.
Can anyone delineate a non obvious history to this complete laissez faire?
If chrome team who thinks about the world and ads team who thinks about $$$ are total separate entities who don't influence each other for special interests then I applaud the effort.
I hope this is done in the open in chromium source code. Basically the current way extensions work is by injecting massive amounts of CSS and js in the page. This makes a lot of optimizations in chrome useless for fast page renders. Doing an optimized ad block engine would make chrome feel faster
An AdSense robot flagged us two times for violating policies regarding "calling attention" to advertising because of this "sticky" ad unit. I appealed, didn't work, and had to roll back AdSense lest our company get banned.
In a later conversation, a Google rep reached out to wonder why we weren't showing Google ads. I explained the policy violations and that we were more interested in our floating ad unit then AdSense. A few emails later and poof! I was assured there would be no more policy violations issued over this ad unit, and we were able to roll back onto AdSense inventory.
Would Google partners get blocked at the same rates as non-Google partners? Perhaps not.
With such seemingly capricious decisions by Google, and so little customer service resources outside of robot policy automation and appeals, I worry about the company playing this role.
The "3 ads max" rule goes out the window as well.
I don't have a problem with this approach. I see it as a given that they would strike different deals with the breadwinners.
I used to have a rep as well, and he also made some problems I had magically disappear.
There's no way that Google can effectively be police, judge, jury, and executioner all at the same time, given their own massive conflicts of interest.
But I think this is a great step to stop the "race to the bottom".
Right now there is no incentive for an ad network to make "well behaved" ads. Most of the "ad blocking crowd" will block them regardless of how nice they are, and advertisers will pay less for them, and site owners don't care because the money gets better the scummier the ads are.
By auto-blocking sites with the worst offenders at the browser level they can start to push all sides toward wanting "better" ads. It gives networks, advertisers, and site owners all incentive to make sure their ads are unobtrusive and safe.
One of the problem is the definition of "intrusive and dangerous" varies wildly from person to person. Ad blockers have generally handled this by blocking everything while giving the ability to whitelist exceptions. I imagine it would be much more difficult to get good user satisfaction by attacking this from the opposite approach.
Except if you're Google and have near-infinite ML resources at your disposal and 50% of the browser market. An algo could be trained by a thumbs up / thumbs down to spot good and bad ads / vendors within six months.
https://www.extremetech.com/internet/220696-forbes-forces-re...
Someone forgets that for a few days YouTube was serving malware in their ads.
Looking at popularvideo downloaders gets you things like Video Downloader professional: "Caution: The download of YouTube videos to hard drive is locked because of restrictions of the Chrome Store."
And if you think users couldn't handle using one of those, there's nothing stopping someone from making an e.g. "Privoxy configurator + blocklist updater" browser extension that just serves as a client GUI to your ad-stripping proxy's control channel. (Or giving the daemon a system-tray icon that launches an Electron GUI or something.)
The development of ad-blockers outside of the browser kind of stalled ~5 years ago, but only because everyone has been pretty satisfied with the browser extension solution to the problem. Take it away, and other solutions will just come back into play, with all the modern lessons learned from building the browser-extensions brought in.
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
Edit: This actually pushed me back to Firefox after using chromium for years.
Another reason to do so is to make sure users will not be forced to install ad-block manually therefore make sure more users see google ads. Because obviously "Google AdBlocker" will show ads from Google and partners.
They are trying to be both the player and the judge at the same time.
if (isAdsense) { return false; } // Whatever we do is totally cool of course
runAdblockDetect();[1] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMBm.jpg:large
https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/803998582227533825 => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyhfYyWWEAAH8zq.jpg:large
https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/649256227277537280 (visually, a page with no ads) => https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQKfGQBWoAAhNc7.png:large
I find it much easier to control by deciding on a policy up front and letting my browser help me enforce it.
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.
Thank you for creating Ublock Origin! :)
If a site is willing to treat their consumers that badly then fuck them. I have no respect and will not feel bad about using an ad blocker there.
On the flip side, a number of sites have started asking to turn off ad blockers (e.g. Wired), and if it's a site I visit frequently I'm willing to give it a try. If the page is filled with video ads or blinky shit, the ad blocker gets turned on again.
All blockers allow you to whitelist whatever site you want -- if allowing a site to fund itself through advertising is fine with you. I personally prefer the "user decides" approach than the "yet another 3rd-party decides" approach when it comes to whitelisting.
If Google is really interested in ensuring good user experiences, they should work with the EFF to set up a fund of some kind to support this work, and then have EFF manage it.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:betterads.org
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:acceptableads....
Step 1. Surprise the world with better ad blocking tech than what currently exists.
Step 2. When trust in tech is established, start blocking ads from other ad networks by calling them foul. Do this slowly so it's not obvious.
Step 3. Wait for customers of other ad networks to notice their ads are not effective.
Step 4. Steal customers...Profit.
More likely is an antitrust lawsuit.
Blocking ads is not an easy job. Especially with things like native ads. Blocking shitty ads should be easier though.
I went to check on the status of that program and got this message:
We’re launching a new and improved Contributor in early 2017!
Edit: though from the article it really does seem much more benign.
Disclosure: I am working on what is, ostensibly, a competing product.
I like the extension... the advertisers are costing me money by consuming bandwidth, and slowing down everything... well I will try to hit them where it hurts.
1. People like you, who say "but I can just ignore ads" are right, and ad companies are about to go out of the business.
2. People who are convinced that ads don't affect them are wrong.
It doesn't seem like ad companies are struggling to me? So the logical conclusion is that ignoring ads doesn't work.
Now on the retaliation. Anyone trying to expose me to ads is aggressively trying to compromise my decision making process. Since they started, I see nothing wrong with defending myself by increasing their costs.
>They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently want to look at
The real cost is that your decisions are compromised.
<plug>
So I created a minimal blocklist for the worst clickbait (mostly Outbrain and Taboola). The list is compatible with uBlock Origin and Adblock Plus.
https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/
</plug>
...the following types of ad experiences fell beneath the initial
Better Ads Standard: pop-up ads, prestitial ads, ads with density
greater than 30%, flashing animated ads, auto-play video ads with
sound, poststitial ads with countdown, full-screen scrollover ads, and
large sticky ads.
same source as the story: https://www.betterads.org/coalition-for-better-ads-releases-...
Privacy is not a massive concern for people, but it is a concern. It's enough of a concern for people to mistrust the brand serving the adverts - google.
Considering how much google relies on its brand, trust is a big part of the reason why people entrust google with their often very private searches.
People don't like advertising for lot of reasons, that's why they use ad blockers and not ad filters.
This is why googles attempt to introduce a block on advertising is like a salesman attempting to stop people from cold calling.
Publishers have other choices for ad supply, Google is not the most lucrative, but it's the best for high volume so it's everywhere, because people need to get their fill rates.
If a major browser like Chrome starts punishing publishers for not policing their supply, it'll only benefit the big networks.
(I'm actually very skeptical of this article's claims...)
I tried out Firefox for a week this year and the experience didn't come anywhere close to that of using Chrome, not only for development but also as a user. Heck, even Electrolysis is still a mess with half the extensions still blocking it.
It's really beyond my understanding how a megacorp like Google has a product with worse UX than old Opera which was developed by what, a hundred people, maybe?
Just yesterday I tapped a news story from Google Now only to be greeted with a full screen and vibrating phone ad a few seconds after the story loaded. Totally unacceptable and from a story promoted by Google within Google Now!
The big issue for Google is clearly conflict of interest.
But like I and others have said something needs to be done to sort out the mess that is web advertising. We need industry standards on what is acceptable and anything that isn't gets blocked.
Yeah. If only Google allowed uBlock Origin to be installed on Chrome for mobile they wouldn't need to create their own adblocker. /s
And for the record, I click ads sometimes. Mainly on Facebook, because they're impressively relevant. I've discovered quite a few apps and products that I like through ads.
Most people don't. Enough do that make the practice profitable enough to fill our mailboxes with spam.
The same applies to scummy web ads.
Not even my parents or grand parents click ads. I wouldn't believe anybody who claims there might be an unknown group of people who really do click ads.
You might not click on the ads, but (if you're not blocking them) you're probably seeing them, and remembering some of them, and they influence you.
https://www.betterads.org/about/
"Leading international trade associations and companies involved in online media ..."
Google is a member, FWIW, among very many.
Once both companies destroy each other, we can pick up the pieces left over and start to build a nicer web free of these two privacy plagues.
Seems like a safe bet they wouldn't serve ads that would get blocked.
http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-...
or is it
"Advertising company will block ads (obviously except its own)"? "Content providers - use Google's ad network if you want to make sure you get ad revenue from Chrome!"
Will Google try to remain "fair"? Does the profit-maximizing moves align with "fairness"?
It's a risky move by Google and one made likely more out of need for themselves than need for their users.
For all the wonders of Google it's still very much a one trick pony from a business standpoint. Anything that threatens their ad revenue is a very real threat to their business health. All the fun "side businesses" while very cool aren't exactly paying the bills.
Advertising is dead in its current state. The first banner ad had a success rate of 95%, compare that with today's metrics of less than 1% and you see the issue.
Google is trying to do something to please shareholders, but ultimately this strategy will fail.
There is a silver lining for users here. If Google does go down this route, Firefox and Edge will eventually follow suit. This somewhat concerted action against intrusive ads will put a lot of pressure on ad agencies and content providers, which could be the impetus they need to rethink their ad delivery strategy to be more user-friendly.
Google has every incentive to make advertising on the web palatable for most everyone. If that means blocking some ads, then they need to do that.
A while ago, Apple added ad blocking features to iOS 9, however users had to explicitly enable them by installing an adblocker apps. I have not seen significant impact by this move (G and FB are still growing).
They wouldn't be impacted by this at all, in my opinion who this hurts most is publishers.
Also what about my comment? If I publish something even on Facebook why I'm not paid too? Where is the limit? If there's "nothing free" principe why people help each others on forum? (it's start to become less and less) people don't want more to do free things, but this is bad, bad because it's was about helping, information, not about payment to read crap. or steal content from other (pinterest)
According to wikipedia they have criticized Microsoft for enabling Do Not Track by default in Internet Explorer 10.
They also went against Mozilla for planning to turn on blocking of 3rd party HTTP cookies in Firefox.
They even blocked AdBlock to attend an event of theirs.
So I am sure they will just LOVE that Google is making all of its competitors dance to the IAB's tune. I wonder who is pulling the strings behind IAB when Google goes and does something like this.
Whatever "polite" implementation Google implements in Chrome won't be enough anymore.
He was on this website: http://www.beverlybees.com/install-package-bees-langstroth-h... and the first ad said "Click here to download the video player extension" which got him to install a browser extension.
When I asked him why, he said "well, I'm trying to watch this tutorial video and it said I needed an extension". It was just an unrelated ad. Adsense must've picked up the "install" keyword on the page and started showing "download" ads.
I told him it was an ad and he went back to the page, falling for the 2nd mid-article ad further down which was a large play/download button. The ads made him think he was looking for a video even though there is no video in the blog post tutorial.
Watching my dad get fooled like this so helplessly really nauseated me, and it's Google's own ads. How many ad clicks are from people thinking it's part of the content?
I installed uBlock Origin immediately.
Now, it might seem that Google wants to maintain an edge over these with the new ad-blocking feature but one can tell that it will only block ads outside Google network.
The way I see it as a bigger bet on cannibalizing itself because if Google does not then somebody else will.
Then again, I wish Gmail could see that 60% of my email traffic is with one other person and stop showing me ads for dating sites. And I wish that Amazon ads would be for goods complimentary to the things I've bought rather than ads for the items I've already bought.
Unless you have some lobbying ace up your sleeve to force 'acceptable ads' as a standard to implement.
I haven't used Opera since they changed rendering engines, so I can't comment beyond that.
My take: Ad wrangler attempts to quash competition by leveraging it's dominant browser share.
How on earth does an ad slinger take the moral high ground wrt ad intrusiveness or whatever is currently considered naughty by targets of ads?
The web has been in a downward spiral for years: Fewer and fewer users browse the web without an adblocker. Which leads Publishers to bombard them with more and more ads. Which leads more users to use adblockers.
Blocking annoying ads for all users by default could break this vicious circle.
Why are ads that consume a few too many CPU cycles more morally repugnant than ads that nearly invisibly manipulate a consumer's search results with undermining, misdirecting, or hortatory messaging?
The primary goal for this possible feature is to block "bad" ads, as deemed by the ad industry.
Publishers that use DFP will be paying Google to serve ads that will ultimately be blocked by a Google owned browser.
It would be neat if they checked your DNT setting and then blocked tracking based on that.
So where are the ad networks that offer such ad-type?
Yeah like every journalist do not give your source, make false article, try to say what will be the future and fail to do it. This site have BIG annoying ad at start. F * this site. (Downvote me it's free) this is not a value added article, it only try to bias make view and try to pretend they know what will happen, like we all know, journalist don't know anything they are just follower and they need to start to give info that matter, that are true of today, not of the future, without any added value.
With that said, how in the heavens or hells will Google be able to defend this move from competing ad agencies while letting through their own ads? This cannot be the first we'll hear of this if it actually happens.
Likewise, you have the right to bring an intermediary who looks at your salad and hides all the olives for you.
If your intermediary happens to work for Green Olive Co. and he hides the black olives but not the green ones, you have the right to switch to another intermediary. Or get another intermediary who checks the plate and hides the rest of the olives. Or do whatever you want, because you're not obligated to consume any part of the salad that you don't want to.
Full disclaimer: I use things for free day in and day out. I try to pay for things that I find value in as my budget allows. I find many ads annoying.
Sure, if you're blocking ads on a platform where you paid a subscription I'd agree with you.
Hmm, maybe I should patent that idea.
How does this bode for anti-trust protections?
Seems reasonable considering Chromium goal:
> Chromium is an open-source browser project that aims to build a safer, faster, and more stable way for all Internet users to experience the web.
All of a sudden, Mozilla's decision to move towards Chrome's extension model looks suspicious.
Or are they also going to block user-tracking?
Just wondering.