Google Will Block Spammy Ads (Just Not Many of Its Own)(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Google Will Block Spammy Ads (Just Not Many of Its Own)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-swayed-efforts-to-block-annoying-online-ads-1518623663
23 comments
I think google shouldn't link to news articles on paywalled sites. And only index that which is visible in a given article. that's just me though.
> [Google executive Scott Spencer] said that less than 1% of the web’s most visited sites—under 1,000 of them—are currently out of compliance with the rules
So it's an ad blocker that doesn't block over 99% of ads?
So it's an ad blocker that doesn't block over 99% of ads?
It's not really an Ad Blocker. It _does_ block ads in some cases, but that's not the point.
> While the result of this action is that Chrome users will not see ads on sites that consistently violate the Better Ads Standards, our goal is not to filter any ads at all but to improve the experience for all web users. As of February 12, 42% of sites which were failing the Better Ads Standards have resolved their issues and are now passing. This is the outcome we are were hoping for — that sites would take steps to fix intrusive ads experiences themselves and benefit all web users.
Source: https://blog.chromium.org/2018/02/how-chromes-ad-filtering-w...
> While the result of this action is that Chrome users will not see ads on sites that consistently violate the Better Ads Standards, our goal is not to filter any ads at all but to improve the experience for all web users. As of February 12, 42% of sites which were failing the Better Ads Standards have resolved their issues and are now passing. This is the outcome we are were hoping for — that sites would take steps to fix intrusive ads experiences themselves and benefit all web users.
Source: https://blog.chromium.org/2018/02/how-chromes-ad-filtering-w...
Sounds like Google Police ?
Well, of course it's not actually an ad blocker, it's a middle-ground between "ad blocker" and "no ad blocker". And to be fair, that does seem like something that some people are asking for.
That said, the self-interest is palpable and makes it hard to take this seriously, akin to a bottled-water manufacturer pushing for stricter standards on the purity of tap water. In fact it seems like the fact that the standards are set by an industry coalition (of which Google is a prominent member) rather than Google itself, is the only thing keeping this from being outright antitrust, in that Google is using one of its products to restrict the activity of its competitors.
That said, the self-interest is palpable and makes it hard to take this seriously, akin to a bottled-water manufacturer pushing for stricter standards on the purity of tap water. In fact it seems like the fact that the standards are set by an industry coalition (of which Google is a prominent member) rather than Google itself, is the only thing keeping this from being outright antitrust, in that Google is using one of its products to restrict the activity of its competitors.
Google is generally in control of it's "coalitions" and "alliances", and other members participate because they get blocked out if they don't. It is outright antitrust, they just painted it a little nicer color for us.
See also: The "Open" Handset "Alliance", an industry group of companies who want permission to use Google's apps, who Google will threaten to permanently ban if they dare ship a device without them: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers...
See also: The "Open" Handset "Alliance", an industry group of companies who want permission to use Google's apps, who Google will threaten to permanently ban if they dare ship a device without them: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers...
It's an "abusive ad" blocker, not an "ad" blocker, so it makes sense. I'd argue that percentage should be higher, though.
how many articles about this do we need?
Any WSJ/News Corp coverage of Google/other tech companies should be taken with a massive pinch of salt. They are direct competitors and have long waged a campaign against their influence https://twitter.com/thelancearthur/status/963090315472093184
You should judge the coverage based on the credibility of the WSJ newsroom (it's high) as well as the reporter (also high) rather than on who owns the publication. Especially if you have no evidence of them interfering with the newsroom.
The coverage of Google across all of Murdoch's media outlets speaks for itself. It's not exactly subtle. Compare the number of times some minor Google story has been on the front page of a Murdoch paper in the last few months (dozens) with how often the lead story in all the other anglosphere papers combined is about Google (I'd be surprised if it was more than one or two).
I say that as somebody who doesn't like Google and doesn't like this ad 'blocking' feature.
I say that as somebody who doesn't like Google and doesn't like this ad 'blocking' feature.
There's anecdotal evidence that these reporters/editors are selective in the quotes they print to Google's detriment: https://twitter.com/annemariebridy/status/963875868178243585
Because Google's own ads aren't spammy... I don't really understand what WSJ is trying to say. Honestly every one of their articles about Google sounds like a unsubstantiated hit job.
It's pretty simple:
1. Do you agree with the definition of "spammy ads" defined by the coalition? If not, then what about it would you change? Is anything about it "unfair"?
2. Do you see any Google ad that breaks the rules and isn't filtered? Do you think a non-Google ad that doesn't break the rule and is filtered? If so, point me to it.
So many people claim that Google "owns" the coalition. Why does it even matter if you can't find any issue in the standard they've come up with?
If you agree with the standard, and the standard is properly enforced, then what is the problem?
It's pretty simple:
1. Do you agree with the definition of "spammy ads" defined by the coalition? If not, then what about it would you change? Is anything about it "unfair"?
2. Do you see any Google ad that breaks the rules and isn't filtered? Do you think a non-Google ad that doesn't break the rule and is filtered? If so, point me to it.
So many people claim that Google "owns" the coalition. Why does it even matter if you can't find any issue in the standard they've come up with?
If you agree with the standard, and the standard is properly enforced, then what is the problem?
> So many people claim that Google "owns" the coalition. Why does it even matter if you can't find any issue in the standard they've come up with?
The answer to this question is self evident. It matters that the people who write the rules are part of the competition. Further, the people who write the rules also enforce them and in an opaque way (both technically and procedurally).
It doesn't matter to me, I use uBlock for adverts.
The answer to this question is self evident. It matters that the people who write the rules are part of the competition. Further, the people who write the rules also enforce them and in an opaque way (both technically and procedurally).
It doesn't matter to me, I use uBlock for adverts.
Again, the result of said coalition is an open standard. If you can't find any flaw in said standard, why does it matter where it came from? For all I care, it could've been made by serial killers. I look at that list and see a reasonable and fair set of rules that I would like to see enforced.
Explanation seems to be simple: person who written this article just have no experience. And there are deficit of truthful information about Google intentions in ad blocking sphere.