Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker(theintercept.com)
theintercept.com
Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/be-careful-celebrating-googles-new-ad-blocker-heres-whats-really-going-on/
178 comments
I'm a little more hopeful. They have a clear incentive to keep really bad ads off their own services because if they don't a lot of people will just reinstall another ad blocker. If I didn't have to deal with unmutable autoplaying video ads or ads spouting malware I'd be more willing to browse with a limited ad blocker.
Google will never be able to pry uBlock Origin from me! Stay away!
Me neither BUT I am optimistic about this. If ads become better, horrifying ones get blocked and most users have blocking we will see some great things:
- non-technical users with safer and better experience
- better revenue models / more innovative businesses that are based on actual sales
- better uBlock experience because ads are not incentivized to be horrible
Also, the problem is less adverts than tracking which is fed by this. Obviously companies like FB and Google still will but hopefully tracking relaxes either by the awareness this causes driving a change in user behavior AND defunds some of the tracking as businesses shift to dif Models.
I won't stop filtering and blocking, but I would love the experience to be better, safer, and faster. If the main advert company, Google, does something about this we will be better off. Nontech users will definitely be.
- non-technical users with safer and better experience
- better revenue models / more innovative businesses that are based on actual sales
- better uBlock experience because ads are not incentivized to be horrible
Also, the problem is less adverts than tracking which is fed by this. Obviously companies like FB and Google still will but hopefully tracking relaxes either by the awareness this causes driving a change in user behavior AND defunds some of the tracking as businesses shift to dif Models.
I won't stop filtering and blocking, but I would love the experience to be better, safer, and faster. If the main advert company, Google, does something about this we will be better off. Nontech users will definitely be.
And if Google takes steps to prevent third-party ad blockers from working in Chrome? Or renders them worthless through exceptions to the filtering API?
Even if you ignore Google's Funding Choices and its potential to increase adoption of view-ads-or-pay (a lose/lose for privacy, btw) you are very vulnerable if you use Chrome and/or a Google controlled OS. The Coalition for Better Ads won't be helping you by keeping Google in check. It is more or less the same companies you are fighting right now (check membership and note NAI, IAB, DMA, and other trade associations).
Even if you ignore Google's Funding Choices and its potential to increase adoption of view-ads-or-pay (a lose/lose for privacy, btw) you are very vulnerable if you use Chrome and/or a Google controlled OS. The Coalition for Better Ads won't be helping you by keeping Google in check. It is more or less the same companies you are fighting right now (check membership and note NAI, IAB, DMA, and other trade associations).
Would it be hard to maintain a minimal fork, with enough changes to allow an adblocker, and nothing else changed? I would pay a couple bucks for that.
Sure and there'll be tons of die hards like you who won't stop using blockers. This still makes a lot of sense if it keeps new people from installing a 3rd party blanket ad blocker and eating into ad revenue from Google's own platform.
Based on the article, I didn't see any evidence they are shutting down chrome add-ons. I'm really lost on why people are getting the impression of that. When Google made Google+, they didn't block you from visiting Facebook, why would this be different
By 'keeps' I didn't mean Google would programmatically block ad blockers but remove enough of the annoying ads that people wouldn't think using a total blocker is necessary.
Google already has a history of banning extensions and apps. For example, ad blockers are against the Google Play ToS.
> If I didn't have to deal with unmutable autoplaying video ads or ads spouting malware I'd be more willing to browse with a limited ad blocker.
Not being able to install noscript/adblock at work means that every time I go to bloomberg it does the garbage autoplay shit. So frustrating.
Why when I come to read an article would you think I'd want to hear someone talking??
Not being able to install noscript/adblock at work means that every time I go to bloomberg it does the garbage autoplay shit. So frustrating.
Why when I come to read an article would you think I'd want to hear someone talking??
If you are using a Mac the new Safari can help you with this at the least.
Hooray, our circus includes free bread!
This product change is mainly about the majority of people who don't use an adblocker.
Why wouldn't people willing to install an ad blocker just use Google's and another?
That has already happened. One of the reasons Goole renamed itself "Alphabet" and started using different brand names (e.g. "Waymo") for other products is to confuse consumers about their source. The "Google" brand has become synonymous with advertising and invasion of privacy, and the reversal of strategy (used to stick the brand on everything vs. isolating it to search and ads) is a hedge against the growing consumer distrust.
I think you have that backwards; the move was to allow higher risk ventures to go forward with the chance of visible failure without harming Google's brand reputation which, contrary to your description, is actually quite strong.
This is another way of saying the same thing.
No, deprave and dragonwriter are making opposite claims. Deprave is claiming that Google created new brands like Waymo and Alphabet so that the (claimed) distrust of Google would not negatively affect these ventures. Dragonwriter is claiming that Google created new brands so that if the new, risky ventures failed, those failures would not negatively affect the well-liked Google brand.
The premise that visible business failure harms brands is false. It's your opinion and it sounds like it makes sense, but it's not supported by any data.
> The premise that visible business failure harms brands is false.
Maybe, but it's a popular belief in business anyway; moreover, however true or false it is in general, I think it's pretty clear that Google, specifically, has a problem (whether rational or not) in some potential customer sectors with service/product discontinuations reflecting negatively on perception of other services/products under the Google brand, even if that is a sui generis effect rather than a reflection of a generally-applicable effect of product failure on brand image.
Maybe, but it's a popular belief in business anyway; moreover, however true or false it is in general, I think it's pretty clear that Google, specifically, has a problem (whether rational or not) in some potential customer sectors with service/product discontinuations reflecting negatively on perception of other services/products under the Google brand, even if that is a sui generis effect rather than a reflection of a generally-applicable effect of product failure on brand image.
> The premise that visible business failure harms brands is false.
Given that many forms of visible business failure literally cause brands to cease to exist, it seems indisputable that at least some of the time they're harmed.
Given that many forms of visible business failure literally cause brands to cease to exist, it seems indisputable that at least some of the time they're harmed.
Some of the times they're harmed, some of the times they're not. There's no correlation, ruling out the slightest possibility of causation. Is it risk management, then? No, because a product with a well known and trusted brand has much higher chances of success. Is Google internationally reducing the success chance of their billion dollar bets? No. The only reasonable conclusion to make is that Google doesn't want to taint their new offerings with the existing brand.
What you describe in your first sentence is a correlation. Additionally, risk management sometimes involves preventing things that have never happened before.
We may just have to disagree on the value of Google. It seems obvious to me that it is a critical asset to Alphabet that must not lose search/product share before another Alphabet subsidiary pays off. I believe the purpose of spinning companies out of Google is more about improving capital allocation than protecting either brand, with the possible exception of Waymo if there is a huge backlash against autonomous vehicles.
We may just have to disagree on the value of Google. It seems obvious to me that it is a critical asset to Alphabet that must not lose search/product share before another Alphabet subsidiary pays off. I believe the purpose of spinning companies out of Google is more about improving capital allocation than protecting either brand, with the possible exception of Waymo if there is a huge backlash against autonomous vehicles.
Your logic is flawed.
"Some of the times they're not" does not exclude a potential correlation.
For example: "Some of the time, going to the hospital will not make me better, therefore there is no correlation between going to a hospital and getting better"
"Some of the times they're not" does not exclude a potential correlation.
For example: "Some of the time, going to the hospital will not make me better, therefore there is no correlation between going to a hospital and getting better"
>There's no correlation, ruling out the slightest possibility of causation
That sounds like an interesting study, where can I read it?
That sounds like an interesting study, where can I read it?
How well established is it that there is no correlation?
> The "Google" brand has become synonymous with advertising and invasion of privacy, and the reversal of strategy (used to stick the brand on everything vs. isolating it to search and ads) is a hedge against the growing consumer distrust.
I really don't think so. Even Microsoft is not there yet for most people.
I really don't think so. Even Microsoft is not there yet for most people.
> One of the reasons Goole renamed itself "Alphabet" and started using different brand names (e.g. "Waymo") for other products is to confuse consumers about their source.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Agree. It could easily also be about the legality of being a software company and a car company, and so on. After all, when you file corporate taxes you have to write down a number indicating your industry. I always wondered what they put there.
This, along with Safari's 'stop-ad-tracking' feature released on WWDC17, will very probably kill the Internet ads business (the others). I would be surprised if stock prices of the ads networks don't plumage.
> Web users will quickly recognize their only options: pay to use the internet, or uninstall the ad blockers and surf the web for free.
Or they could disable Chrome ad blocking and install their ad blocker of choice.
If I'm reading this correctly then no portion of the user population is hurt by this. Power with religious objections to advertising are free to continue using them. Typical users who don't care don't have to deal with awful and broken stuff. People who feel charitable enough to pay for advertising get to do so.
But doesn't it hurt the advertisers? That's not a given either. This article makes it sound like all non-Google advertisers will be shut out. But that's clearly not true: plenty of non-Google advertisers are represented in the decision making process, to the point where one can be convinced that a variety of views were considered.
Ad blockers are a response to the absolutely worst of ads, to the detriment of better-behaved networks like Google, Facebook, and friends. While I agree it's a little creepy that an advertising company shoulda put out an ad blocker, Google is in a unique place to tackle the problem of poor advertising by filtering truly bad experiences, and doing so hurts no one except truly abusive networks.
Or they could disable Chrome ad blocking and install their ad blocker of choice.
If I'm reading this correctly then no portion of the user population is hurt by this. Power with religious objections to advertising are free to continue using them. Typical users who don't care don't have to deal with awful and broken stuff. People who feel charitable enough to pay for advertising get to do so.
But doesn't it hurt the advertisers? That's not a given either. This article makes it sound like all non-Google advertisers will be shut out. But that's clearly not true: plenty of non-Google advertisers are represented in the decision making process, to the point where one can be convinced that a variety of views were considered.
Ad blockers are a response to the absolutely worst of ads, to the detriment of better-behaved networks like Google, Facebook, and friends. While I agree it's a little creepy that an advertising company shoulda put out an ad blocker, Google is in a unique place to tackle the problem of poor advertising by filtering truly bad experiences, and doing so hurts no one except truly abusive networks.
I imagine this may irk some googlers on here, but after Hangout's effect on xmpp / Reader's on RSS, I find it hard to discount the impact a built-in Chrome ad blocker would have on other generally available blockers. A lot of major sites still allow their content to be read by adblock users today because of the volume of traffic they'd have to shut out; but I don't believe that'd be the case once they start becoming a minority.
I think that you are too naive and part of the problem why the Google has become so dominant.
I actually installed an ad-blocker because I could not stand video ads (I would call it TV-cation of the Internet) and that was the easiest way to eliminate them.
You argue that people can install another browser and use an ad-blocker with that.
This is true for now (given reasonably motivated and knowledgeable users), but Google is also pushing DRM into web browsers.
This opens a possibility to restrict access to a website to all browsers but Google one. Given their market dominance they can do this.
I actually installed an ad-blocker because I could not stand video ads (I would call it TV-cation of the Internet) and that was the easiest way to eliminate them.
You argue that people can install another browser and use an ad-blocker with that.
This is true for now (given reasonably motivated and knowledgeable users), but Google is also pushing DRM into web browsers.
This opens a possibility to restrict access to a website to all browsers but Google one. Given their market dominance they can do this.
I'm not disagreeing that this is possible, but I don't think jumping straight to such a nightmare scenario really does any good. The reason being is that they just don't go that far and it's suddenly seems okay in comparison to what "could" happen.
More realistically, I think Google hurts other ad blockers and expands their oligarchic position in the ads space (especially on mobile).
More realistically, I think Google hurts other ad blockers and expands their oligarchic position in the ads space (especially on mobile).
> I'm not disagreeing that this is possible, but I don't think jumping straight to such a nightmare scenario really does any good.
Ten years ago I thought that the level of tracking and corporate surveillance we see today was a nightmare scenario. I was clearly an optimist. Don't be me.
Ten years ago I thought that the level of tracking and corporate surveillance we see today was a nightmare scenario. I was clearly an optimist. Don't be me.
I think that the point of GP is that we did not get here suddenly but step by step.
>I don't think jumping straight to such a nightmare scenario really does any good.
I think that is the main problem of the mainstream thinking - inability to see how multiple independent trends can interact and create new realities.
I believe that blindness, even the forced one, to such realities is one of the greatest dangers that allows these realities to develop and take almost everyone by surprise - oh, we did not see it coming.
>The reason being is that they just don't go that far and it's suddenly seems okay in comparison to what "could" happen.
Perhaps two scenarios should be presented: a catastrophic one and a one single step in the wrong direction.
I think that is the main problem of the mainstream thinking - inability to see how multiple independent trends can interact and create new realities.
I believe that blindness, even the forced one, to such realities is one of the greatest dangers that allows these realities to develop and take almost everyone by surprise - oh, we did not see it coming.
>The reason being is that they just don't go that far and it's suddenly seems okay in comparison to what "could" happen.
Perhaps two scenarios should be presented: a catastrophic one and a one single step in the wrong direction.
If Google and Facebook use this policy to establish an oligopoly (or cement their existing one), and that allows Google and Facebook to raise advertising prices above equilibrium pricing, then that squeezes companies that wish to advertise with costs that are shifted onto consumers.
Additionally, having a Google/Facebook oligopoly hurts incumbents when Google uses its overwhelming advertising market power to give itself exclusive advertising deals in order to promote some product. Advertising monopolies can be used to prop up and establish other monopolies. The most obvious example of Google doing this is advertising Chrome on the front page of google.com.
Additionally, having a Google/Facebook oligopoly hurts incumbents when Google uses its overwhelming advertising market power to give itself exclusive advertising deals in order to promote some product. Advertising monopolies can be used to prop up and establish other monopolies. The most obvious example of Google doing this is advertising Chrome on the front page of google.com.
> that allows Google and Facebook to raise advertising prices above equilibrium pricing
Maybe, but do they need to do that or do they just sit there and reap the profits of being an ever expanding proportion of the market (which is now thriving again because they killed other ad blockers). Regulators will just ignore them that way.
Maybe, but do they need to do that or do they just sit there and reap the profits of being an ever expanding proportion of the market (which is now thriving again because they killed other ad blockers). Regulators will just ignore them that way.
That's like saying antibiotics are only meant to kill the worst of one's infection. Unfortunately, there are foolish people who assume a lower dose/dosage will suffice. Even after an M.D. assesses what they need and tells them exactly what to take! Explicit warnings and education became necessary.
We have a similar problem in the "ad blocking" space. Naive users don't appreciate that there is a big difference between ad-blockers that only block "annoying" ads and ad-blockers that provide more comprehensive blocking (annoying ads and related security threats and related privacy threats). Many who want/need the stronger solution opt for the weaker solution and they are harmed by doing so. The lower efficacy "annoying ad blockers" need black box warnings.
We have a similar problem in the "ad blocking" space. Naive users don't appreciate that there is a big difference between ad-blockers that only block "annoying" ads and ad-blockers that provide more comprehensive blocking (annoying ads and related security threats and related privacy threats). Many who want/need the stronger solution opt for the weaker solution and they are harmed by doing so. The lower efficacy "annoying ad blockers" need black box warnings.
Power is typically zero-sum. As Google gains effective monopoly power, Mozilla and others whose interests are more aligned with the public interest lose power. I could go on.
Put simply, if nobody stops using other adblockers because of this, then nothing is directly a problem. The problems come when Google uses their power to do things like block adblockers in Chrome (as they already do on Android!) and other ramifications of their power.
Anyway, adblockers aren't just about obnoxious ads. They are also about the simple fact that if I want to search for some product, I would prefer a neutral result and don't want any amount of my results to be biased toward whoever spends the most money for the privilege, and further issues with advertising in general.
Put simply, if nobody stops using other adblockers because of this, then nothing is directly a problem. The problems come when Google uses their power to do things like block adblockers in Chrome (as they already do on Android!) and other ramifications of their power.
Anyway, adblockers aren't just about obnoxious ads. They are also about the simple fact that if I want to search for some product, I would prefer a neutral result and don't want any amount of my results to be biased toward whoever spends the most money for the privilege, and further issues with advertising in general.
> as they already do on Android!
This is exclusionary detailing, wouldn't you say? Chrome on Android doesn't have an extensions platform.
This is exclusionary detailing, wouldn't you say? Chrome on Android doesn't have an extensions platform.
That doesn't stop you from using a local proxy to filter ad network traffic, like what Adblock Plus does on android. Adblock Plus was removed from the play store in 2013 [0].
That being said there are other browsers on android that either support extensions (like firefox) or have an adblocker built in.
[0]: https://adblockplus.org/blog/adblock-plus-for-android-remove...
That being said there are other browsers on android that either support extensions (like firefox) or have an adblocker built in.
[0]: https://adblockplus.org/blog/adblock-plus-for-android-remove...
Which means that's an understatement of how bad the problem is.
Oh, please. Lack of an extensions platform is not evidence of an intent to suppress your specific pet extension.
Thanks for clarifying. I don't use it. I just verified by talking to others that uBlock and Firefox was possible while uBlock in Chrome on Android was not (nor was any other adblocker).
> plenty of non-Google advertisers are represented in the decision making process, to the point where one can be convinced that a variety of views were considered.
Just because they are seeking input from others doesn't mean they are the good guys. Google's opinion can change very quickly, and plenty of smaller shops can be hurt by that, even if they are offering a superior product.
This just reeks of too much potential for abuse.
Just because they are seeking input from others doesn't mean they are the good guys. Google's opinion can change very quickly, and plenty of smaller shops can be hurt by that, even if they are offering a superior product.
This just reeks of too much potential for abuse.
That sounds nice, but there's still a conflict of interest in them owning the biggest browser, the biggest ad network and now selectively blocking. Seems like an obvious slippery slope that might not be bad at launch, but will slowly make the other ad networks (even) less competitive.
Google's approach resembles the old Microsoft "embrace and extinguish" playbook [1]. Sure users could disable Chrome adblocking and install something else, but how many will? Especially if Google builds a better adblocker (but one that coincidentally doesn't block anything Google cares about).
There's already a strong push from the security community to use Chrome over other browsers, because it's more secure. This puts Google in a very powerful position of setting the terms of the debate over web standards, web advertising, and tracking. But Google's interests are not necessary aligned with those of their users, who are also NOT their customers. I don't see why the same dynamic wouldn't play out for a Google ad-blocker.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
There's already a strong push from the security community to use Chrome over other browsers, because it's more secure. This puts Google in a very powerful position of setting the terms of the debate over web standards, web advertising, and tracking. But Google's interests are not necessary aligned with those of their users, who are also NOT their customers. I don't see why the same dynamic wouldn't play out for a Google ad-blocker.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
Opposing advertising doesn't mean you have "religious objections". It's fine to disagree with people, but trying to paint them as irrational actors by comparing them to religious fanatics is disingenuous.
> plenty of non-Google advertisers are represented in the decision making process
So, it's officially a cartel.
Private entities shouldn't be regulating markets. And the biggest internet advertiser shouldn't be in the ad-blocking market.
So, it's officially a cartel.
Private entities shouldn't be regulating markets. And the biggest internet advertiser shouldn't be in the ad-blocking market.
> But doesn't it hurt the advertisers? That's not a given either
Easy scenario, I come up with a new ad style that works pretty well (worth loads). Google (et al) say no, that violates some standard we set, blocked. They just cost me a bunch of money.
> Google is in a unique place to tackle the problem of poor advertising by filtering truly bad experiences
By leveraging a leading (at least) position in search, browsers, and advertising.
If they want to drop out completely from their "Coalition for Better Ads", make it a consumer group instead, then maybe I'll trust them on this. Right now this is the type of move that really makes me agree with the author, Alphabet should be broken up.
I also wonder if they are going to punish ads that look like page content (google search) or before youtube videos.
I think you could make the case that the current idea actually makes it pretty much impossible not to screw over new companies in favour of the entrenched group (google, facebook, etc...). If you are going to be restricted to the ads google already does extremely well, why wouldn't you just go with Google?
oh, and we have the issue of Android. The vast majority of mobile users just use the browser already on the phone. That would be chrome, which will have only the ad blocker provided by Google unless they change things.
Easy scenario, I come up with a new ad style that works pretty well (worth loads). Google (et al) say no, that violates some standard we set, blocked. They just cost me a bunch of money.
> Google is in a unique place to tackle the problem of poor advertising by filtering truly bad experiences
By leveraging a leading (at least) position in search, browsers, and advertising.
If they want to drop out completely from their "Coalition for Better Ads", make it a consumer group instead, then maybe I'll trust them on this. Right now this is the type of move that really makes me agree with the author, Alphabet should be broken up.
I also wonder if they are going to punish ads that look like page content (google search) or before youtube videos.
I think you could make the case that the current idea actually makes it pretty much impossible not to screw over new companies in favour of the entrenched group (google, facebook, etc...). If you are going to be restricted to the ads google already does extremely well, why wouldn't you just go with Google?
oh, and we have the issue of Android. The vast majority of mobile users just use the browser already on the phone. That would be chrome, which will have only the ad blocker provided by Google unless they change things.
Everything we've seen about this program indicates it is implemented as a blacklist of undesirable behavior and not a whitelist of known-good as formats. For your first example, the difference between this being beneficial and problematic comes down to the guidelines in place.
Note a similar FUD argument can be made about Google's own advertising network: "if we unilaterally decide we don't like your ads or your websites we'll cut you off." Similarly for search results. Yet Google's implementation and guidelines are generally seen as reasonable, economically satisfactory, and not stifling innovation.
Also, what would be the point of dropping out of this coalition? The online ads industry is largely self-regulating, there's no federal regulator setting the rules. Instead coalitions like this one are formed which set guidelines and make standards. What point would it serve to pull out of a coalition and subject yourself to the control of your competitors for a one-time show of goodwill at the expense of long-term influence?
Maybe you don't trust self-regulation, and that's fine. Appropriate even, given how often it breaks down. But keep in mind the alternatives are either government regulation or no regulation. The advertising industry is presented with an existential challenge in the form of bad advertising and ad blockers. The closer you look at it, the more you realize this move is actually a pretty good one, all things considered.
Note a similar FUD argument can be made about Google's own advertising network: "if we unilaterally decide we don't like your ads or your websites we'll cut you off." Similarly for search results. Yet Google's implementation and guidelines are generally seen as reasonable, economically satisfactory, and not stifling innovation.
Also, what would be the point of dropping out of this coalition? The online ads industry is largely self-regulating, there's no federal regulator setting the rules. Instead coalitions like this one are formed which set guidelines and make standards. What point would it serve to pull out of a coalition and subject yourself to the control of your competitors for a one-time show of goodwill at the expense of long-term influence?
Maybe you don't trust self-regulation, and that's fine. Appropriate even, given how often it breaks down. But keep in mind the alternatives are either government regulation or no regulation. The advertising industry is presented with an existential challenge in the form of bad advertising and ad blockers. The closer you look at it, the more you realize this move is actually a pretty good one, all things considered.
> Everything we've seen about this program indicates it is implemented as a blacklist of undesirable behavior and not a whitelist of known-good as formats.
Here's a thing: as a user, I'd much prefer them to implement it as a whitelist. We really don't need more "innovation" in ad space - because it always means more dishonesty, more annoyance and more tracking. Ads have already maxed-out their primary feature - informing consumers about things available on the market. Everything on top of that is malicious in purpose. And I think it would be better for everyone if companies would spend money and innovation effort on improving their actual product instead.
Here's a thing: as a user, I'd much prefer them to implement it as a whitelist. We really don't need more "innovation" in ad space - because it always means more dishonesty, more annoyance and more tracking. Ads have already maxed-out their primary feature - informing consumers about things available on the market. Everything on top of that is malicious in purpose. And I think it would be better for everyone if companies would spend money and innovation effort on improving their actual product instead.
> Also, what would be the point of dropping out of this coalition?
It would remove the obvious conflict of interest. To be clear, I'm talking about dissolving the coalition of advertisers and instead having the group agree to regulation from an outside group.
> But keep in mind the alternatives are either government regulation
and I've stated outright that I'm in favour of breaking up Google over this.
Not just this, but partly.
It would remove the obvious conflict of interest. To be clear, I'm talking about dissolving the coalition of advertisers and instead having the group agree to regulation from an outside group.
> But keep in mind the alternatives are either government regulation
and I've stated outright that I'm in favour of breaking up Google over this.
Not just this, but partly.
>According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it’s calling “Funding Choices.” The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per page view to use third-party sites that block all advertising. Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge them. Users could then “white list” particular sites, allowing ads to be shown on them and removing the charge. If users decided to pay to block ads, Google would receive a portion of that payment, sharing it with the publisher.
Pay for use ad-blocking is exactly what I want. Did you hear me? Exactly. I don't want to manage a zillion news subscriptions at $15+ a pop. I don't want to get nagged to turn off my ad blocker.
I want a reasonable amount of money to to spent towards the people making the content that I'm vaguely interested in because other people on Hacker News are interested in it too. I've already solved the problem of content I really care about, I just buy a darned subscription.
This is a huge market opportunity and I'm just absolutely silly with glee that Google finally decided to jump on it. Because only Google has the scale to make something like this work. Finally I'm going to see the end of mob rule and the establishment of law and order in web advertising. Couldn't have happened fast enough for me.
Please please, just charge me for the content I consume. Why did it take the industry so long to figure this out?
Pay for use ad-blocking is exactly what I want. Did you hear me? Exactly. I don't want to manage a zillion news subscriptions at $15+ a pop. I don't want to get nagged to turn off my ad blocker.
I want a reasonable amount of money to to spent towards the people making the content that I'm vaguely interested in because other people on Hacker News are interested in it too. I've already solved the problem of content I really care about, I just buy a darned subscription.
This is a huge market opportunity and I'm just absolutely silly with glee that Google finally decided to jump on it. Because only Google has the scale to make something like this work. Finally I'm going to see the end of mob rule and the establishment of law and order in web advertising. Couldn't have happened fast enough for me.
Please please, just charge me for the content I consume. Why did it take the industry so long to figure this out?
Google contributor (their implementation of this idea) only kicks in if ad sellers don't outbid you for that slot.
Its a hopelessly google-myopic idea.
Its a hopelessly google-myopic idea.
[deleted]
Well, if I can install a secondary ad-blocker to block those ads, I'd be fine with it. The market will eventually settle around a standard rate for a piece of content and then the world can finally know the real price for ads without all the perverse incentives.
> I'm just absolutely silly with glee that Google finally decided to jump on it.
There is no "finally" here - this isn't new. Google Contributor is from 2014 [1].
Google and other companies have tried this idea many times already. It's true that people like you exist, but there haven't been enough to make this viable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
There is no "finally" here - this isn't new. Google Contributor is from 2014 [1].
Google and other companies have tried this idea many times already. It's true that people like you exist, but there haven't been enough to make this viable.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Contributor
Nobody cares because it's not a real solution. Making content sites buy into it means only 10% of the ads I see might get mitigated. Everybody else's solution has the same problem.
It needs to be universal to be of any use to the end user. Otherwise it's only of slight use to Google, marginal use to content creators, and no use at all to consumers. That's what I'm hoping for from the new content blockers. A way to force a new order on the content world.
It needs to be universal to be of any use to the end user. Otherwise it's only of slight use to Google, marginal use to content creators, and no use at all to consumers. That's what I'm hoping for from the new content blockers. A way to force a new order on the content world.
Contributor was extremely unreliable in multiple ways. I want something that unconditionally blocks the worse kinds of ads, and that doesn't give more money to sites just because they have more inactive ad rectangles.
> Google, a data mining and extraction company that sells personal information to advertisers
The content in this article, is, for the most part, good content. What annoys me is that The Intercept seems fit to act like a heroic good guy insofar as being completely biased against Google from start to finish in what could have been a mostly informational article. An opening lead like this serves no purpose other than making this bias known.
Are we really beyond "just the facts" journalism, even by new journalism companies?
The content in this article, is, for the most part, good content. What annoys me is that The Intercept seems fit to act like a heroic good guy insofar as being completely biased against Google from start to finish in what could have been a mostly informational article. An opening lead like this serves no purpose other than making this bias known.
Are we really beyond "just the facts" journalism, even by new journalism companies?
"Just the facts" journalism was always a myth, because journalists inherently choose which facts to report.
IMHO The Intercept has been pretty up-front about their POV: they're supposed to be the publication that speaks truth to power, meaning that they're opposed to basically all big institutions (Google, Facebook, big corporations, establishment media, both political parties, the government, all governments, etc.) If you share their POV, of course they're the heroic good guy. If you don't, they can be kinda annoying.
Even if you don't fully share their POV, though, it can be good to read them to get a diverse array of POVs. I'm an ex-Googler, so of course I found their anti-Google bias a bit grating. Nevertheless, I'm glad I read it, because it was informative and offers a perspective that other mainstream news sources are not reporting on.
IMHO The Intercept has been pretty up-front about their POV: they're supposed to be the publication that speaks truth to power, meaning that they're opposed to basically all big institutions (Google, Facebook, big corporations, establishment media, both political parties, the government, all governments, etc.) If you share their POV, of course they're the heroic good guy. If you don't, they can be kinda annoying.
Even if you don't fully share their POV, though, it can be good to read them to get a diverse array of POVs. I'm an ex-Googler, so of course I found their anti-Google bias a bit grating. Nevertheless, I'm glad I read it, because it was informative and offers a perspective that other mainstream news sources are not reporting on.
I think journalism itself should go away in its present form (and in the form it has been for the past centuries). Because as it is today, it's held to ridiculously low standards.
I mean, consider how would you handle any kind of factual investigation that actually matters to you. Say your production server suddenly overloaded and died, and everyone in your company is trying to figure out what happened.
Would the search involve interviewing engineers and management, and then writing biased stories about their life and decisions? Would you treat "investigators inherently choose which facts to report" as an acceptable standard for their work?
No. You'd start with a fact database, you'd go on collecting every bit of related information, making it available to see and analyze, you'd gather conclusions and add things, mark some entries as "dead ends", etc. until the real cause reveals itself. Suddenly it's entirely possible to reach unbiased facts. I wish we created our news the same way.
I mean, consider how would you handle any kind of factual investigation that actually matters to you. Say your production server suddenly overloaded and died, and everyone in your company is trying to figure out what happened.
Would the search involve interviewing engineers and management, and then writing biased stories about their life and decisions? Would you treat "investigators inherently choose which facts to report" as an acceptable standard for their work?
No. You'd start with a fact database, you'd go on collecting every bit of related information, making it available to see and analyze, you'd gather conclusions and add things, mark some entries as "dead ends", etc. until the real cause reveals itself. Suddenly it's entirely possible to reach unbiased facts. I wish we created our news the same way.
Most reportage deals with those pesky humans, and not a "production server(that) suddenly overloaded and died," or with something that is similarly deterministic, in a forensic sense.
While one could certainly attempt to create a "fact database" about a busted server, trying to do the same about an event involving humans, each with their own undiscernable motivations and varying degrees of willful duplicity, is often impossible.
Instead you get stories about the life decisions and bias of the actors involved, because that's what a person who's been trained to tease out the facts from a myriad of fallible sources, any of whom may or may not be lying or trying to advance an unstated agenda, does.
While one could certainly attempt to create a "fact database" about a busted server, trying to do the same about an event involving humans, each with their own undiscernable motivations and varying degrees of willful duplicity, is often impossible.
Instead you get stories about the life decisions and bias of the actors involved, because that's what a person who's been trained to tease out the facts from a myriad of fallible sources, any of whom may or may not be lying or trying to advance an unstated agenda, does.
Still not buying it. I don't feel like journalists are trained to tease out facts, they still tease out stories.
For pretty much any newsworthy event there are lots of facts that are concrete and objective, and frankly, that's what matters most of the time. Life decisions and motivations and biases make for a fun reading, but are otherwise irrelevant.
A politician said something, or did not. A company is going forward with a project, or is not. The proposed law implies a consequence X, or does not. Those are ground facts. I'm not saying they're always easy to establish, but the media sources are not even trying.
I recently stumbled upon an interesting site that tries to run Bayesian analysis on various pieces of information and media reports, to piece out the actual reality. See e.g.: https://www.rootclaim.com/claims/what-caused-the-chemical-ca... What I want to point out there is not their analysis in particular. Just how it's structured. It seems that establishing some objectively verifiable summary of a "messy" real-world story is not impossible.
For pretty much any newsworthy event there are lots of facts that are concrete and objective, and frankly, that's what matters most of the time. Life decisions and motivations and biases make for a fun reading, but are otherwise irrelevant.
A politician said something, or did not. A company is going forward with a project, or is not. The proposed law implies a consequence X, or does not. Those are ground facts. I'm not saying they're always easy to establish, but the media sources are not even trying.
I recently stumbled upon an interesting site that tries to run Bayesian analysis on various pieces of information and media reports, to piece out the actual reality. See e.g.: https://www.rootclaim.com/claims/what-caused-the-chemical-ca... What I want to point out there is not their analysis in particular. Just how it's structured. It seems that establishing some objectively verifiable summary of a "messy" real-world story is not impossible.
Lol unfortunately reality is a little more complicated than your contrived and arbitrary scenario
Google is a data mining and extraction company. That's hard to argue with.
Are you complaining about the "sells personal information" part?
Are you complaining about the "sells personal information" part?
Google does a lot of different things, but people with an axe to grind often like to label Google as something specific that they dislike.
In this case they call it a data mining company, which is both meaningless due to how vague the term is, but also slightly menacing sounding.
Does Google do things that would fall under a reasonable interpretation of data mining? Definitely. Is it their primary activity? Not by a long shot. Even the people who want to label Google an advertising company have more of a point on a revenue basis. But these characterisations are needlessly reductive and lead you to believe false conclusions like "Google wants all of your data"
In this case they call it a data mining company, which is both meaningless due to how vague the term is, but also slightly menacing sounding.
Does Google do things that would fall under a reasonable interpretation of data mining? Definitely. Is it their primary activity? Not by a long shot. Even the people who want to label Google an advertising company have more of a point on a revenue basis. But these characterisations are needlessly reductive and lead you to believe false conclusions like "Google wants all of your data"
> slightly menacing sounding
As it should be. They are aggressively capturing and selling people data from phones and browsers, as proven by large amounts of evidence. This is pretty factual, please don't call it "bias".
As it should be. They are aggressively capturing and selling people data from phones and browsers, as proven by large amounts of evidence. This is pretty factual, please don't call it "bias".
> They are aggressively capturing and selling people data from phones and browsers, as proven by large amounts of evidence.
I'm interested, where can I go and buy some user data from Google?
I'm interested, where can I go and buy some user data from Google?
Google's primary activity is collecting and monetizing your personal data. That's what their ad business is based on, and their ad business is really the only thing they do that makes money (in Google scale terms of money, anyways). It doesn't matter what department someone at Google works at, their paycheck is paid for by the monetization of that data mining.
Anything else Google does is either a route to more data mining and extraction, or a fun side project they do with money made off data mining and extraction.
Anything else Google does is either a route to more data mining and extraction, or a fun side project they do with money made off data mining and extraction.
[deleted]
The Intercept has never been a "just the facts" journal:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/anti-google-rese...
They are more of a think-tank or advocacy group than a newspaper.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/anti-google-rese...
They are more of a think-tank or advocacy group than a newspaper.
That article is about the Google Transparency Project, which is a separate organization from The Intercept. Think of GTP as being a PR firm and The Intercept as being a publication. PR firms work to place sources & articles with publications that they feel will be friendly to their message, but the publication itself is a separate organization that reports on many topics besides what the PR firm wants.
So as you mentioned, The Intercept is "friendly to" anti-Google messaging, which is exactly what I'm saying.
What would you add or remove [from that quote] to make it more factual?
Replace "that sells personal information to advertisers" with "that uses personal information to match consumers to advertisers".
Unless Google really sells personal information somewhere, in which case I'd like to know the price tag on the file about me that's supposedly for sale. My understanding is that such a product doesn't exist.
(Disclosure: I work at Google but on Chrome OS, ie. client hardware. No idea what the servers are doing except that I've heard that there must be lots of them.)
Unless Google really sells personal information somewhere, in which case I'd like to know the price tag on the file about me that's supposedly for sale. My understanding is that such a product doesn't exist.
(Disclosure: I work at Google but on Chrome OS, ie. client hardware. No idea what the servers are doing except that I've heard that there must be lots of them.)
The only practical difference here is that Google isn't giving away their main value proposition. Why give people the product when you can charge them for it over and over?
Either way, at the end of the day, Google is still selling our data.
Either way, at the end of the day, Google is still selling our data.
They are selling data but they are not selling personal information, big difference. If I can't pay them to lookup information about a specific person then they don't sell personal information.
[deleted]
The lead is not only factual, but greatly strengthens the points made within. Google makes the vast majority of their money off advertising and data, they are taking steps that will help them to get an even stronger hold on that market with high potential to be extremely anti-competitive.
Google makes the vast majority of their money off advertising and data
By selling the service of targeting and delivering ads, not by selling personal information.
By selling the service of targeting and delivering ads, not by selling personal information.
Kind of, but really they -are- selling personal information, just not outright. You advertise with Google and get to see the demos, trends, etc so you can target your own ads. It's almost like a SaaS for data mining, especially when you pair it with analytics...which of course you do, that's what goals in analytics are for.
The Intercept has a viewpoint, and they're expressing it. That's kinda what we do on the internet.
I think you're confusing blogging with journalism. This person is a blogger and, thus, research and fact checking do not apply.
The fox is in the henhouse, but he brought along a hammer and some nails and he really really doesn't like coyotes, so it's all good.
Part of the article was a bit confusing, though: "According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it’s calling 'Funding Choices.' The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per page view to use third-party sites that block all advertising. Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge them. Users could then 'white list' particular sites, allowing ads to be shown on them and removing the charge. If users decided to pay to block ads, Google would receive a portion of that payment, sharing it with the publisher."
Third-party sites that block all advertising? I think the author has this confused with third-party ad blockers. And the part where Google does the tracking means that now is certainly the time to switch to Firefox and keep ajax.googleapis.com, google-syndication.com, google-analytics.com, and all the rest of them firmly on the banned list.
At times I almost feel nostalgic for the bad old days of Internet Explorer 6... (But then I remember what IE6 was actually like, and the feeling passes.)
Part of the article was a bit confusing, though: "According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it’s calling 'Funding Choices.' The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per page view to use third-party sites that block all advertising. Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge them. Users could then 'white list' particular sites, allowing ads to be shown on them and removing the charge. If users decided to pay to block ads, Google would receive a portion of that payment, sharing it with the publisher."
Third-party sites that block all advertising? I think the author has this confused with third-party ad blockers. And the part where Google does the tracking means that now is certainly the time to switch to Firefox and keep ajax.googleapis.com, google-syndication.com, google-analytics.com, and all the rest of them firmly on the banned list.
At times I almost feel nostalgic for the bad old days of Internet Explorer 6... (But then I remember what IE6 was actually like, and the feeling passes.)
The company distributing the ads is controlling the ad-blocker. We have seen this before in other industries. It is never good.
The key part here is they are deciding to make it enabled by default. Does it not really amount to malpractice against their competitors in the guise of user experience. Anti-trust?
Because just saying that one can always disable it and use something like uBlock Origin is missing the point that most of the people will not bother to do that except a tiny minority and that would essentially mean this coalition, which by all measures comes across more of a sham, will succeed in monopolizing ads completely.
I think the least they could do to even look impartial is keeping it disabled by default rather than making it opt-in.
Because just saying that one can always disable it and use something like uBlock Origin is missing the point that most of the people will not bother to do that except a tiny minority and that would essentially mean this coalition, which by all measures comes across more of a sham, will succeed in monopolizing ads completely.
I think the least they could do to even look impartial is keeping it disabled by default rather than making it opt-in.
I'm curious to see how Google reacts when Brendan Eich's new browser project gets traction....
"Brave Browser Will Reward Users with Ethereum-Based Tokens for Switching on Ads":
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/brave-announces-blockchain-d...
"Brave Browser Will Reward Users with Ethereum-Based Tokens for Switching on Ads":
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/brave-announces-blockchain-d...
Is there any reason to think this will actually gain traction with a significant portion of the population? This seems like the kind of thing HN gushes over but the general population couldn't care less about.
Sure, that part of Brave is focused on tech people. But all these trends start with tech people - then we recommend it and install it for our friends and family.
Also, that's just part of the Brave strategy. It's going to block a lot more ads than Chrome by default. That has the potential for general appeal, not just for tech people.
Also, that's just part of the Brave strategy. It's going to block a lot more ads than Chrome by default. That has the potential for general appeal, not just for tech people.
Idk, I tweeted Eich until he responded that a search engine is more important than a browser; but Brave is still great.
Eich ran Mozilla, guy is smart. Google won because it was the best. I can see Brave being the best. Search is being encroached on, adverts are being killed Brave could win for simplicity and privacy which people are valuing more & more...I hope.
Eich ran Mozilla, guy is smart. Google won because it was the best. I can see Brave being the best. Search is being encroached on, adverts are being killed Brave could win for simplicity and privacy which people are valuing more & more...I hope.
'when' is a pretty strong statement for something so unlikely.
[deleted]
Google's bold move only works this well because other browser developers like Mozilla (or even OS developers) were too hesitant to ship ad-blocking by default. Sad, a missed opportunity. I've said this a long time ago. It's unfortunate that Google does the first step when it really could have been one of the last if browser developers acted properly. Ad blocking is a more or less solved problem and could have been firmly integrated into browsers at least 5 years ago. And I mean free OSS ad blocking without bullying advertisers into paying fees to be unlocked.
[deleted]
There is a serious chance of backfire though. Calling it adblocking normalizes it across all the users. Once the genie is out, shipping a defective adblocker makes for a inferior product.
I think the opportunity window is still open, and can't for the life of me understand why Mozilla is not doing the right thing.
I think the opportunity window is still open, and can't for the life of me understand why Mozilla is not doing the right thing.
> Web users will quickly recognize their only options: pay to use the internet, or uninstall the ad blockers and surf the web for free.
Or switch to an open source browser like Chromium/Firefox and go on using the ad-blocker of choice and avoid the pages that charge you.
Or switch to an open source browser like Chromium/Firefox and go on using the ad-blocker of choice and avoid the pages that charge you.
I still dont understand why simple endorsments dont work for some sites. Just put a text banner somewhere prominent that says "thanks bobs burgers for being our sponsor" there is no way ad blockers could pick that text out of all the other text and block it. And there is no reason anyone would want to block it anyway.
How much should you pay for that endorsement? Normally, you'd pay based on how many people see the ad. That, then incentives lying about how many people saw the ad, or creating fake views with bots. To deal with that, you add in Javascript that checks if the ad is genuinely visible and, try to validate that they aren't a bot, and whatever other fakery they try.
Adding a layer on top of that, people generally have a target audience, so if you want them as a customer, you might have to inject some more Javascript to determine if the user is part of the target audience.
And pretty soon the site is full of tracking beacons and blobs of JS.
Adding a layer on top of that, people generally have a target audience, so if you want them as a customer, you might have to inject some more Javascript to determine if the user is part of the target audience.
And pretty soon the site is full of tracking beacons and blobs of JS.
Daringfireball.com.
John Gruber's ad model for over a decade is to post one RSS sponsorship on Monday and a thank you on Friday. He charged $8000 a week it.
https://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/
John Gruber's ad model for over a decade is to post one RSS sponsorship on Monday and a thank you on Friday. He charged $8000 a week it.
https://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/
Another interesting and simple ad model that I saw was on a bitcoin gambling site. The ads were a small image banner at the top of the site.
Each advertiser would choose a daily rate to pay. Then each time the page was loaded an ad was selected randomly weighted by daily rate (eg. Alice pay $1/day and Bob pays $2/day, Bob's ads show up twice as often).
I like how simple it was while still allowing advertisers to bid against each other. The total ad revenue of the site would scale directly with website traffic. There are no trackers, no third party services, and no JS. Just simple get what you pay for. Want more? pay more.
Yeah, but then you've got cases like this: https://www.troyhunt.com/ad-blockers-are-part-of-the-problem...
I've been using adblockers for about ten years now, but blocking that just seems over the top and I understand Troy's frustration. I want a blocker to prevent trackers from being loaded and for removing annoying crap from webpages. That includes most ads, newsletter popups, interstitials, maybe social widgets and cookie notices, but certainly not "Sponsored by [Company Name]: [A sentence about the company]".
I've been using adblockers for about ten years now, but blocking that just seems over the top and I understand Troy's frustration. I want a blocker to prevent trackers from being loaded and for removing annoying crap from webpages. That includes most ads, newsletter popups, interstitials, maybe social widgets and cookie notices, but certainly not "Sponsored by [Company Name]: [A sentence about the company]".
Why is that thing loaded by javascript, and why is it on a different domain from the site (with www vs. without it).
It took way too many steps for me to get to see the sponsor message.
It took way too many steps for me to get to see the sponsor message.
Troy's sponsor message isn't loaded by JavaScript. Someone blacklisted the div id on the list several ad blockers are using.
The div is static, the sponsor name is dynamic.
You can't charge as much for that kind of ad, because it has poorer targeting, can't be updated as easily to facilitate shorter marketing campaigns, can't support A/B testing, and probably a dozen other major things advertisers care about.
I do occasionally see that kind of sponsorship, but only on websites that take very little time/money to maintain.
I do occasionally see that kind of sponsorship, but only on websites that take very little time/money to maintain.
Some do. It has a host of disadvantages.
1) not trackable by client for pvs 2) not easily rotated, or if so requires home grown ad server or integration with web app
1) not trackable by client for pvs 2) not easily rotated, or if so requires home grown ad server or integration with web app
Those ads are very expensive to place on the page and have lower inventory. Aka less efficient than popular ads
If this actually results in an internet mostly free of super annoying ads, then I can't get too broken up about that even if it does give Google a major advantage over its competitors.
The question, of course, is whether Google can/will abuse this in anti-consumer ways. Some people have said that Google's criteria for "good" ads aren't that great. The article implies that Google can somehow force adblocker users to either pay per pageview or turn off their adblockers, which is awful if true, though I'm not clear how it's supposed to work.
The question, of course, is whether Google can/will abuse this in anti-consumer ways. Some people have said that Google's criteria for "good" ads aren't that great. The article implies that Google can somehow force adblocker users to either pay per pageview or turn off their adblockers, which is awful if true, though I'm not clear how it's supposed to work.
> The article implies that Google can somehow force adblocker users to either pay per pageview or turn off their adblockers, which is awful if true, though I'm not clear how it's supposed to work.
And that's when you download a different browser...
And that's when you download a different browser...
>If this actually results in an internet mostly free of super annoying ads
This seems highly unlikely, since most of the annoying ads already come from google. Try watching a dailymotion video and you'll see. Even with a brand new Macbook Pro, it starts to stutter after a while because of all the fucking video adverts around the content. Same with some forum sites that have google ads beside each post.
In the end I created a simple blacklist in /etc/hosts, which completely resolves the problem and gets rid of virtually all adverts. Note that I don't have any philosophical objection to ads, and some of them are actually useful, but I draw the line when they make it impossible to actually see the content on the site.
127.0.0.1 adserver.adtech.de content.tomyvid.com adserver.adtechus.com gce-or.bidswitch.net tpc.googlesyndication.com s.apxtarget.com nym1-ib.adnxs.com googleads.g.doubleclick.net p.algovid.com serve-east.acuityplatform.com cas.ny.us.criteo.com cat.ny.us.criteo.com
This seems highly unlikely, since most of the annoying ads already come from google. Try watching a dailymotion video and you'll see. Even with a brand new Macbook Pro, it starts to stutter after a while because of all the fucking video adverts around the content. Same with some forum sites that have google ads beside each post.
In the end I created a simple blacklist in /etc/hosts, which completely resolves the problem and gets rid of virtually all adverts. Note that I don't have any philosophical objection to ads, and some of them are actually useful, but I draw the line when they make it impossible to actually see the content on the site.
127.0.0.1 adserver.adtech.de content.tomyvid.com adserver.adtechus.com gce-or.bidswitch.net tpc.googlesyndication.com s.apxtarget.com nym1-ib.adnxs.com googleads.g.doubleclick.net p.algovid.com serve-east.acuityplatform.com cas.ny.us.criteo.com cat.ny.us.criteo.com
> According to the Financial Times, Google will allow publishers what it’s calling “Funding Choices.” The publisher could charge the consumer a set price per page view to use third-party sites that block all advertising. Google would do the tracking of how many pages users view, and then charge them. Users could then “white list” particular sites, allowing ads to be shown on them and removing the charge. If users decided to pay to block ads, Google would receive a portion of that payment, sharing it with the publisher.
Assuming the price is reasonable this doesn't sound horrible (but it doesn't sound too great either). How much would a publisher charge for an article view? $0.01? Or something like $0.50+ ? If the price is too high then I'd have to ditch Chrome for Firefox or Safari; I do not like ads.
Assuming the price is reasonable this doesn't sound horrible (but it doesn't sound too great either). How much would a publisher charge for an article view? $0.01? Or something like $0.50+ ? If the price is too high then I'd have to ditch Chrome for Firefox or Safari; I do not like ads.
Maybe they will make the article views like a reverse auction system which they have in Adwords.
"What ads would get blocked? The ones not sold by Google, for the most part."
That is hilarious. Talk about self-serving. How can they do this with a straight face?
I guess "Don't be evil" doesn't imply "Don't be slimy".
That is hilarious. Talk about self-serving. How can they do this with a straight face?
I guess "Don't be evil" doesn't imply "Don't be slimy".
Well, to be fair, it seemed to me from the release announcement that they were blocking ads on webpages where the publisher set their pages up for a frustrating experience (pop-up display ads, auto play video ads), irrelevant of which ad systems were serving the ads on the pages. They aren't blocking ads from certain ad systems or advertisers. In theory this means the ad blocker shouldn't treat any ad system, including Google's, preferentially.
In practice, who knows?
In practice, who knows?
Someone is going to make that argument however: Google Ads disallows displaying their ads that way, and is extremely good at finding websites that do that, and not only banning them but keeping any potentially earned money as well.
EU has already tried to make similar arguments to "break up Google" (lol, it's an American company, glwt) by basically blaming them for having a fair ToS and enforces it like no tommorow, thus producing services that attracts users.
Thus, having an ad service that bans shitty publishers and advertisers both makes publishers and advertisers (sometimes exclusively) do business with Google.
So, Google making Chrome ban shitty publishers and ad networks that harbor shitty publishers and advertisers ... makes Google look like they're not attacking themselves: which, well, they aren't, because they simply don't engage in that behavior on their ad network.
There's probably a shorter way of explaining this.
EU has already tried to make similar arguments to "break up Google" (lol, it's an American company, glwt) by basically blaming them for having a fair ToS and enforces it like no tommorow, thus producing services that attracts users.
Thus, having an ad service that bans shitty publishers and advertisers both makes publishers and advertisers (sometimes exclusively) do business with Google.
So, Google making Chrome ban shitty publishers and ad networks that harbor shitty publishers and advertisers ... makes Google look like they're not attacking themselves: which, well, they aren't, because they simply don't engage in that behavior on their ad network.
There's probably a shorter way of explaining this.
This makes sense. Thanks for explaining. I don't really know the ads ecosystem that well, so those were just my inferences from the blog post. I'm sure that was the intention of the post :-)
Who's to say, though, that the ads Chrome is going to block are any more frustrating than Google ads?
The ads on YouTube are extremely frustrating.
And, the ads on a search results page aren't exactly frustrating, but they do seem very deliberately designed to not look like ads.
The ads on YouTube are extremely frustrating.
And, the ads on a search results page aren't exactly frustrating, but they do seem very deliberately designed to not look like ads.
Honestly, I think the methodology of charging a small amount per page is necessary for the continued success of the internet.
The advertising model of revenue seems to be extremely difficult to pull off in practice.
The advertising model of revenue seems to be extremely difficult to pull off in practice.
>The advertising model of revenue seems to be extremely difficult to pull off in practice.
It seems to work well enough for Google. Not so much for everyone else.
It seems to work well enough for Google. Not so much for everyone else.
Let me tell you what will happen:
- Google creates built-in adblocker that allows google ads
- Google removes the adblockers from Google Store due to some reason
- You don't have an adblocker anymore
- Google creates built-in adblocker that allows google ads
- Google removes the adblockers from Google Store due to some reason
- You don't have an adblocker anymore
The fact that Chrome automatically disables extensions that don't exist in the web store, in the name of security, is probably not a good sign. If it is for security, then advanced users should've been given a way to bypass this restriction, but it doesn't exist. If the adblockers get removed from the store, there would be no easy way to use them without abandoning Chrome.
Chrome is open-source, you could use an alternative chrome based browser, like srware iron.
- You switch to another browser that allows ad blockers or has a good one built-in.
Ah, but not when all the (Google-powered) apps and services you use only work on Google's browser.
company that sells ads says it will develop an ad blocker. why not stop selling ads as well? what is the goal?
Company that sells ads says it will develop an ad blocker for their competition ads.
[deleted]
Having Google decide what ads to block is like leaving the fox to gard the hen house.
I feel an European Union Anti Trust case coming up.
I don't think many people were celebrating it. The vast majority of people saw it as a grubby power grab and a hit to the fairness of the internet.
"Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker. Here’s What’s Really Going On."
I really don't like these kind of titles.
More than that even, the article seems pretty heavily biased against Google. They bring up a good point which I hadn't considered before, but the way the article is written is awfully slanted. For example, this paragraph:
> So this is a way for Google to crush its few remaining competitors by pre-installing an ad zapper that it controls to the most common web browser. That’s a great way for a monopoly to remain a monopoly.
It seems like the author is really trying to paint Google in an unflattering light. Maybe that's how it is, but the facts should speak for themselves.
> So this is a way for Google to crush its few remaining competitors by pre-installing an ad zapper that it controls to the most common web browser. That’s a great way for a monopoly to remain a monopoly.
It seems like the author is really trying to paint Google in an unflattering light. Maybe that's how it is, but the facts should speak for themselves.
The state of online advertisement has to change. Customers and publishers are unsatisfied and there are massive bot scam networks out there.
I am hopeful that Brandon Eich's brave browser[1] will make the ads economy less vulnerable to Google's dominance.
[1] https://brave.com
I am hopeful that Brandon Eich's brave browser[1] will make the ads economy less vulnerable to Google's dominance.
[1] https://brave.com
For me the solution is simple. More of my preferred content is offering honest donation-based support (and receiving fully sufficient funds to operate. The rest is free (the real kind) or paid.
My router just refuses to route to ad servers, and my DNS resolver refuses to resolve their domains.
My router just refuses to route to ad servers, and my DNS resolver refuses to resolve their domains.
I wonder what Mozilla did wrong that this thread is not full of "I'll just switch to Firefox"
I'm on Firefox all the time and it's a RAM saver ;)
Full disclosure: I'm not related to Mozilla in any way but definitely a fanboy.
I'm on Firefox all the time and it's a RAM saver ;)
Full disclosure: I'm not related to Mozilla in any way but definitely a fanboy.
Thinking about it, printing money using basic income might make the demand for ads increase. The economy would be basically based on how much basic income consumers spend.
This article really has an apocalyptic tone, for what is essentially just an alternative adblocker.
AdblockPlus already does most of this anyway (showing ads they get paid for).
AdblockPlus already does most of this anyway (showing ads they get paid for).
Also, technically all major browsers have featured a limited ad blocker for years. It is called a pop up blocker...
I think this will be very beneficial to non-savvy web-users who may be tricked by misleading ads like the download buttons, and the like.
Ads aren't really a problem for me (and I am guessing a lot of others), it's bad/misleading ads like pop-ups, auto-play video ads, etc. I think the idea to block ads that do not follow an established industry standard is definitely a step in the right direction.
Savvy users will continue to use 3rd party ad blockers- no change there.
Ads aren't really a problem for me (and I am guessing a lot of others), it's bad/misleading ads like pop-ups, auto-play video ads, etc. I think the idea to block ads that do not follow an established industry standard is definitely a step in the right direction.
Savvy users will continue to use 3rd party ad blockers- no change there.
Google hosts most of those download button ads...
Also the biggest source of pre-roll auto-play video ads, youtube.
Also the biggest source of pre-roll auto-play video ads, youtube.
I feel like auto-play ads make sense on youtube because youtube is a video service and you go in expecting a video anyway. It's like a TV commercial.
I get super pissed by auto-play ads on non-video websites, but when it's in front of a video such as on youtube I find it only a minor annoyance.
[EDIT: I don't know if there are auto-play ads in the sidebar on desktop, I use adblock on desktop so I only see those video ads on the mobile version, which doesn't have anywhere else to put ads]
I get super pissed by auto-play ads on non-video websites, but when it's in front of a video such as on youtube I find it only a minor annoyance.
[EDIT: I don't know if there are auto-play ads in the sidebar on desktop, I use adblock on desktop so I only see those video ads on the mobile version, which doesn't have anywhere else to put ads]
There's no shock of audio but it's still stopping you from getting to the content. It's just as bad as full-page interstitials. (By the way, does anyone else get unreasonably mad that the button to leave such an ad usually says "skip" even when the ad was already shown and stays up indefinitely?)
It's really frustrating that we cannot have a browser that is both great and not out to get us.
>GOOGLE, A DATA MINING and extraction company that sells personal information to advertisers
Right off the bat this person couldn't even get his facts right. Google doesn't sell personal information to advertisers.
Right off the bat this person couldn't even get his facts right. Google doesn't sell personal information to advertisers.
Came here to say exactly this. Google doesn't sell your personal information. It personalizes the ads it serves you, but that personalization happens in Google, advertisers don't see it.
https://www.google.com/settings/ads/
https://www.google.com/settings/ads/
It might be wrongly implying Google is selling the content of your Gmail - but between Google Analytics and stuff like: https://www.google.com/insights/ Google certainly helps tracking users?
Yes it seems that a determined advertiser could find out quite a bit about people who saw its Google ads...
This is a really important distinction that apparently most reporters don't care about - I see this misconception everywhere
This article is so much garbage
the crown jewel in the google-oligopoly
[deleted]
It is worth remembering the The Intercept used to (still does?) work with and publish material from a Oracle-funded nonprofit that existed for the sole purpose of creating bad PR for Google:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/anti-google-rese...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/anti-google-rese...
That may be true, but what is untrue about the article? How is it ok for a company to be the largest ad company in the world, while controlling the most popular browser on the planet and just announced a service that will kill off its competitors (as if they have many at all?) That's monopolistic behavior. Ask yourself, if Microsoft did this or something similar, would they get hit with anti-trust? Yes.
No, it isn't monopolistic. Look at ad prices continuously going down.
"Monopoly" isn't a buzz word that you throw around randomly. It doesn't even have to do necessarily with market share or control or the market.
There is no monopoly on the ad space, not by very, very far.
"Monopoly" isn't a buzz word that you throw around randomly. It doesn't even have to do necessarily with market share or control or the market.
There is no monopoly on the ad space, not by very, very far.
Microsoft was brought up on anti-trust charges because it packaged a browser with its operating system.
Google controls the majority of ads on extended networks, it controls almost all publisher ads (even Microsoft network sites run Google ads.) If publishers have no where to go but Google, how is that not a monopoly? Ignore search, ignore Facebook and Twitter, those are first party. Google has 0 competition on extended network sites, and this ensures it never will.
Google controls the majority of ads on extended networks, it controls almost all publisher ads (even Microsoft network sites run Google ads.) If publishers have no where to go but Google, how is that not a monopoly? Ignore search, ignore Facebook and Twitter, those are first party. Google has 0 competition on extended network sites, and this ensures it never will.
"Ignore search, ignore Facebook and Twitter, those are first party"
You're not getting the point: extended network sites is not an isolated product. It exists as a part of a large sub-segment (online ads) which part of an even larger market (ads).
You can take a single sub-sub-segment and call it a monopoly. Its doesn't matter if Coke had 95% of the colas market (it does in several countries), it isn't a monopoly, because it competes with thousands of other drinks.
And you can't just look at market share, you need to look at prices. CPMs are falling dramatically across the board, which is completely incompatible with a monopoly.
There is the economical definition of a monopoly, and then there's the layman definition, which means whatever you want to mean.
You're not getting the point: extended network sites is not an isolated product. It exists as a part of a large sub-segment (online ads) which part of an even larger market (ads).
You can take a single sub-sub-segment and call it a monopoly. Its doesn't matter if Coke had 95% of the colas market (it does in several countries), it isn't a monopoly, because it competes with thousands of other drinks.
And you can't just look at market share, you need to look at prices. CPMs are falling dramatically across the board, which is completely incompatible with a monopoly.
There is the economical definition of a monopoly, and then there's the layman definition, which means whatever you want to mean.
What's wrong with creating bad PR if it's true?
Partial (selected) truth isn't truth, it's bias.
I can see it coming - "Host on AMP, and your ads will get through". "Use Google Ads, and your ads will get through." "Pay dues to the Acceptable Ad Consortium, and your ads will get through."
Look what happened with TrustE and their ratings. It started out as a good idea, and ended up as a cover for scumbags. Today, a TrustE seal has negative value.[1]
[1] http://www.benedelman.org/news/092506-1.html