Report: Google allegedly planning native ad-blocker in Chrome

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Drak3 said:

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.

A) Facebook is in the group which determines which ads do and don't get blocked. So no, they are not doing this to block Facebook or other advertisement platforms.

 

B) This doesn't make any sense either. If their argument was "we don't need multiple versions" then surely they would have banned other extensions that duplicate functionality, right? But they have never done this before. It would also open them up to anti-trust lawsuits (which they are already under investigation for in other areas).

 

I think the far more logical explanation is that they are doing this in an attempt to make people less likely to use other adblockers with more aggressive rules. Like I said before, it would be a win-win. Better experience for the users, and ad companies will be able to serve ads to more people (potentially).

[Techicolors]

20 hours ago, huilun02 said:

On mobile use AdAway. Or DNS66 if its not rooted.

They offer system-wide protection through the hosts file or VPN function that is already on the phone, thus takes very little resources to run. They also cannot be manipulated by corporations/outside entities. You control what is blocked or whitelisted, and can include curated lists that stop not only ads, but also known malicious domains and web elements. All attempts to resolve blocked domains will return 127.0.0.1

i use Adguard for ad-blocking on my android device. though if you want to use the more advanced features, one needs a subscription. luckily i got a lifetime sub already and so far it blocks everything quite nicely. even saves the space that was once occupied by the ad 

[NTDaws]

ironic

[Michael McAllister]

@LinusTech @Slick

 

I try to whitelist websites when I can, but I have absolutely no qualms about using an ad blocker.  As long as malware and obnoxious tracking exists, ad blockers will exist.  Native advertising is something that I'd be willing to deal with.  It doesn't impact performance or put my computer at risk.  If these ad companies would like to compensate me in the event they serve malicious content, I'll get rid of my ad blocker right now.  I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon, however.

 

The user has no say, or knowledge most times, in how these ads are sourced.  If you turn on any ad tracker, you'll see that they come from sources that you've never heard of.  An adage in security is don't click on random links; if you didn't ask for it, don't install it.  Isn't the same true for advertisements?

 

If advertisers wish to incentivize people to forego ad blockers, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and the EFF should sit down together to create a searchable, open-source, database of known good advertisers.  Advertisers should be treated like Certificate Authorities.  I'm looking at you, StartCom!

 

If an advertiser serves malicious content, they would be immediately flagged (suspended until further notice) and all major browsers can use this list to block traffic from those companies.  Repeat offenders would be blacklisted indefinitely.

[Michael McAllister]

On 4/20/2017 at 1:22 AM, LAwLz said:

Seems like fairly conservative rules but this will probably be good enough for most people. I'll still use uBlock and whitelist things myself, but this is definitely a move in the right direction if you ask me.

 

uBlock or uBlock Origin?  The latter is updated at a pretty nice clip.

[suicidalfranco]

adnauseam: freck the advertsers right where it matters: their pockets, also it's based off of ublock

[Guest Darth Revan]

When Google a company that made its fortune on ads, is considering making an ad blocker for their own browser.

You know that the advertisement industry has taken the wrong path.

Even the biggest company on the internet acknowledges that you need an ad blocker to view webpages.

That should tell you how fucked up the situation is.

[Lethal Seraph]

Good for google. Maybe theb other ad publishers would had to surround their ads within Googles parameter of acceptable ad.

[Everendless]

Thank goodness for Google. 

[Bensemus]

On 4/19/2017 at 9:05 PM, Sniperfox47 said:

Maybe, I'm not super familiar with Safari. My bad.

 

Just kinda assumed since in my experience they always seem late on the bus to pick up advanced web tech.

That's a pretty bad reason to go off of. Safari does have a reading mode and has had it since ~2011