Report: Google allegedly planning native ad-blocker in Chrome

[2FA]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

I didn't say it was illegal. And Google needs to comply to all regulations to all regions were they operate.

That is why Microsoft needs to comply with the EU regulations, for example.

 

I am saying that they are taking advantage of their practically monopoly presence.

 

Are they though? Can you say that for certain? Or is this your equivalent of the claims against MS? I'm just trying to point out we don't know entirely how this is going to be implemented so making baseless claims like that is ridiculous.

[AresKrieger]

Ok........why would I trust a major ad distributor to block ads if I wanted to block ads, or do they think  their 30 second pre-roll ads don't qualify as annoying.

[GoodBytes]

4 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Are they though? Can you say that for certain? Or is this your equivalent of the claims against MS?

Yes, Google needs to comply to all government regulations where they operate. This applies to ALL companies. If they are not, then governments can take actions (fees, lawsuits, forced closure of shop, and even land take over land and demolish (although I don't think this ever happened in a developed country)). I am sure of this. Now if the government is corrupt and choose to ignore a company actions... that is their choice. I don't see the relationship with MS... they also need to comply.

 

Quote

I'm just trying to point out we don't know entirely how this is going to be implemented so making baseless claims like that is ridiculous.

Blocking ads is blocking ads. Even if it is the fake download buttons that flashes, and plays midi music... if it makes the site up and running and deliver the content you want/enjoy, then it is what it is. I am sure the site owners would love better ads, but can only work what is provided by the agency they associate themselves with for the ads, that best benefits the sites.

[2FA]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

Yes, Google needs to comply to all government regulations where they operate. This applies to ALL companies. If they are not, then governments can take actions (fees, lawsuits, forced closure of shop, and even land take over land and demolish (although I don't think this ever happened in a developed country)). I am sure of this. Now if the government is corrupt and choose to ignore a company actions... that is their choice. I don't see the relationship with MS... they also need to comply.

 

You missed the meaning by a mile. I was asking if they are actually going to use it press their monopoly. You don't if they are yet you assert it as fact. 

The part about MS is about how some people assert baseless claims as fact against MS, which I know you actively defend most of the time. It's a metaphor.

4 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Blocking ads is blocking ads. Even if it is the fake download buttons that flashes, and plays midi music... if it makes the site up and running and deliver the content you want/enjoy, then it is what it is. I am sure the site owners would love better ads, but can only work what is provided by the agency they associate themselves with for the ads, that best benefi

2

You can thank @LAwLz for this link: https://www.betterads.org/standards/

 

Google is apparently going to use that as the standard for being whitelisted. It's reasonable and is already widely used, hence why you don't see many fake download ads anymore.

[GoodBytes]

31 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

You missed the meaning by a mile. I was asking if they are actually going to use it press their monopoly. You don't if they are yet you assert it as fact. 

They are talking advantage of their massive market share to push their ad platform. This is obvious. Businesses don't do charity work. There is a always something they get back.

 

Quote

Google is apparently going to use that as the standard for being whitelisted. It's reasonable and is already widely used, hence why you don't see many fake download ads anymore.

Yes, and this is good... (for now). And Google ads do comply to them. The problem, is that many sites can't get those nice ads as no companies making them or the ad agency chooses to not support them... so they have to go with what is available. Shitty ads, but hey, they can operate. This means less choice for people. The Internet should allow anyone to be able to operate freely. Now many sites will close down, and others can't replace it due to lack of funding to pay for their operations.

[2FA]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

They are talking advantage of their massive market share to push their ad platform. This is obvious. Businesses don't do charity work. There is a always something they get back.

 

Yes, and this is good... (for now). And Google ads do comply to them. The problem, is that many sites can't get those nice ads as no companies making them or the ad agency chooses to not support them... so they have to go with what is available. Shitty ads, but hey, they can operate. This means less choice for people. The Internet should allow anyone to be able to operate freely. Now many sites will close down, and others can't replace it due to lack of funding to pay for their operations.

 

Whatever, you do you.

[Misanthrope]

This would be hardcore antitrust to eliminate adsense competitors: EU would sue them into oblivion (that is assuming they get sued before the EU itself disolves into Oblivion)

[Centurius]

2 hours ago, Orangeator said:

Um, no... Free will is a very real thing. Right now in this moment I can decide to slap my face. Nobody told me to do that, nobody or thing can stop me from doing that, it is by complete free will that I can slap my face right now. "Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action."

Just like I can right now decide to use Firefox instead of Chrome, that is by my own free will. Free will is not a myth, no idea wtf you are talking about.

It's going off topic a bit, but how are you sure that is your free will? You might think you make those choices fully rationally and with your conscious mind, but how can you rule out such factors as genetics, behavioural conditioning and subconscious behaviours?

[2FA]

Just now, Centurius said:

It's going off topic a bit, but how are you sure that is your free will? You might think you make those choices fully rationally and with your conscious mind, but how can you rule out such factors as genetics, behavioural conditioning and subconscious behaviours?

 

It's off topic a lot. I almost replied to him earlier but decided I didn't want to derail my own thread lol.

[BuckGup]

3 hours ago, tsk said:

Well Opera collects all your data and sends it to China, so there's that.

And you think Google doesn't? HA

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Monopoly tactics.

 - Chrome is the most used web browser by considerable margins. Reaching almost 60%!

 - Google will only allow its own advertisement.

 - Most users don't know what ad blockers are, let alone extensions.

 - Websites will have to switch to Google advertisement platform else, have no ad revenue.

 - Google ad platform fully tracks viewers (ignoring Chrome)

 

This will kill websites, and push for aggressive embedded ads, like fake news that acts as sponsors without a trace that it is paid content. Providing false information to readers. When every sites will do stuff like this, there is no "alternative choice".

 

Sites can't even block Chrome users, as viewers will go somewhere else, and not switch to better alternatives.

Except you know, Google themselves do not rule what is and isn't an acceptable ad, and all ads that follow the rules set by the organization (a list of its members can be found here) will be whitelisted.

Not to mention that what you are describing would be illegal, and something Google is already in hot water for. It's in the best interest for everyone to let this succeed. Advertisers won't have to worry about users moving to adblockers that block even more ads (the guidelines for what's an acceptable ad are very generous if you ask me), which in turn means they will make more money. Users will enjoy less obnoxious ads overall.

 

If Google handles this correctly, which I assume they will since handling it incorrectly would be illegal and they are already being sued for less (linking to Google maps from Google search), then it's a win-win.

 

 

Edit:

I just saw your post about how less choice is bad, and I kind of agree. If a site can't get those nice looking ads then this is bad for the site.

But please remember what you are advocating for. It's kind of like saying "yes these chemicals do cause cancer, but since companies can't get this taste in any other way we shouldn't just outlaw it. We are removing choice from the makers of food by limiting the types of chemicals they can put in!".

And no you don't have to shout about how I am saying cancer and ads are equal. It's an analogy, not a 1:1 comparison.

 

Ads has become a really big issue and right now it's in a really bad loop. More and more people are moving to adblockers, which blocks all ads. Since fewer visits are now bringing in revenue for the site they are using more ads to monetize the remaining visitors more. This increase in ads causes more people to use adblockers, and the spiral goes on.

 

You can only break the chain by doing something like this. If it works, then site owners will get more money (assuming they use good ads, which by the way is not decided by Google alone, so it won't be a monopoly like you say it will be) because more visitors will see the ads, and the viewers will get a far better experience since since won't be covered in ads.

[2FA]

2 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

And you think Google doesn't? HA

Uhhh, you just did a complete circle on those series of posts. 

[BuckGup]

1 hour ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Uhhh, you just did a complete circle on those series of posts. 

I was saying Opera had a built in adblocker for over a year now. They also have battery life mode, and built in VPN. The VPN would most likely sell your data as it is free

[2FA]

2 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

I was saying Opera had a built in adblocker for over a year now. They also have battery life mode, and built in VPN. The VPN would most likely sell your data as it is free

Hmmm, well I guess I was slightly wrong.

 

 

 

 

Also, IceWeasel is where it's at. /s

[PlayStation 2]

Time to see if this goes about as well as YouTube recently.

I bet cash this would wind up being a political shitfest.

[suicidalfranco]

still would use adnauseam 

[tsk]

19 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

And you think Google doesn't? HA

Of course they do, but I trust google more with my data to be honest.

[Misanthrope]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Except you know, Google themselves do not rule what is and isn't an acceptable ad, and all ads that follow the rules set by the organization (a list of its members can be found here) will be whitelisted.

Not to mention that what you are describing would be illegal, and something Google is already in hot water for. It's in the best interest for everyone to let this succeed. Advertisers won't have to worry about users moving to adblockers that block even more ads (the guidelines for what's an acceptable ad are very generous if you ask me), which in turn means they will make more money. Users will enjoy less obnoxious ads overall.

 

If Google handles this correctly, which I assume they will since handling it incorrectly would be illegal and they are already being sued for less (linking to Google maps from Google search), then it's a win-win.

 

 

Edit:

I just saw your post about how less choice is bad, and I kind of agree. If a site can't get those nice looking ads then this is bad for the site.

But please remember what you are advocating for. It's kind of like saying "yes these chemicals do cause cancer, but since companies can't get this taste in any other way we shouldn't just outlaw it. We are removing choice from the makers of food by limiting the types of chemicals they can put in!".

And no you don't have to shout about how I am saying cancer and ads are equal. It's an analogy, not a 1:1 comparison.

 

Ads has become a really big issue and right now it's in a really bad loop. More and more people are moving to adblockers, which blocks all ads. Since fewer visits are now bringing in revenue for the site they are using more ads to monetize the remaining visitors more. This increase in ads causes more people to use adblockers, and the spiral goes on.

 

You can only break the chain by doing something like this. If it works, then site owners will get more money (assuming they use good ads, which by the way is not decided by Google alone, so it won't be a monopoly like you say it will be) because more visitors will see the ads, and the viewers will get a far better experience since since won't be covered in ads.

No, flat out no. Google cannot be trusted to make the call and no, this supposed panel of advertisers can't be trusted either to not be easily lead around by the nose by Google. There needs to be more than a pinky promise of neutrality and independent review here.

[tlink]

3 hours ago, Orangeator said:

Um, no... Free will is a very real thing. Right now in this moment I can decide to slap my face. Nobody told me to do that, nobody or thing can stop me from doing that, it is by complete free will that I can slap my face right now. "Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action."

Just like I can right now decide to use Firefox instead of Chrome, that is by my own free will. Free will is not a myth, no idea wtf you are talking about.

no free will is not a very real thing, we have no idea if its a thing. there is more scientific evidence for deterministic will than free will, not that that's conclusive that there is no free will. believing in free will is ethics not science, don't try to paint it as such. its like believing in a soul.

[BuckGup]

1 hour ago, tsk said:

Of course they do, but I trust google more with my data to be honest.

Good joke

[tsk]

Just now, SamStrecker said:

Good joke

Hardly a Joke, pick your evil.

[Doobeedoo]

For sure they will whitelist and go around with their own adds. Though good if natively it blocks the very hassled ones.

[Orangeator]

2 hours ago, tlink said:

no free will is not a very real thing, we have no idea if its a thing. there is more scientific evidence for deterministic will than free will, not that that's conclusive that there is no free will. believing in free will is ethics not science, don't try to paint it as such. its like believing in a soul.

Don't get the religious free will and the real definition of free will confused. The real definition of free will is "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." If you are telling me that humans do not have that definition of free will, then you are sorely mistaken. You are telling me you believe in fate over ones mind being able to choose? What the hell... That doesn't sound very "scientific" to me. Now that isn't a belief either. I can prove time and time again that I can make a decision with "fate" interfering.

[Drak3]

7 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Hey even if they only allow google approved ads, I am all in.

 

The reason I will and always will have an adblocker is 90% of malware comes from these adsites that dont regulate or even check the ads. Good for google!

Those malware infested ads are on Google's Adsense platform, they're Google approved. Only realistic reasons to do this are:

A) Block other advertisement platforms, namely Facebook.

B) Excuse to remove and deny ALL ad blockers. It doesn't matter if Google's built in blocker works or not, on paper, they have one, and on paper, there is no reason to have multiple.

 

Every ad based virus I've ever encountered, exclusively as the guy that fixes them for friends and family, originates from either Google Adsense or Facebook's platform. Neither company gives a shit about you, or your computing safety. If someone is willing to pay, then they can upload all the malware they want and it won't be checked, unless enough people complain about it and it snowballs into a potential PR nightmare.

[tlink]

16 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

Don't get the religious free will and the real definition of free will confused. The real definition of free will is "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." If you are telling me that humans do not have that definition of free will, then you are sorely mistaken. You are telling me you believe in fate over ones mind being able to choose? What the hell... That doesn't sound very "scientific" to me. Now that isn't a belief either. I can prove time and time again that I can make a decision with "fate" interfering.

no. the rules of physics is ultimately what makes the choice, not your mind nor your brain. the free will you describe doesn't exist as far as we know. you quoted the exact definition of religious free will. not governed by fate.
"an inevitable and often adverse outcome, condition, or end"
the laws of physics are inevitable, our brain is in this physical world and as far as we know, we are our brains. therefore free will is a myth until its proven to exist.