
Google Will Block Spammy Ads (Just Not Many of Its Own) - rayuela
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-swayed-efforts-to-block-annoying-online-ads-1518623663
======
SA500
Any WSJ/News Corp coverage of Google/other tech companies should be taken with
a massive pinch of salt. They are direct competitors and have long waged a
campaign against their influence
[https://twitter.com/thelancearthur/status/963090315472093184](https://twitter.com/thelancearthur/status/963090315472093184)

~~~
IBM
You should judge the coverage based on the credibility of the WSJ newsroom
(it's high) as well as the reporter (also high) rather than on who owns the
publication. Especially if you have no evidence of them interfering with the
newsroom.

~~~
anon1385
The coverage of Google across all of Murdoch's media outlets speaks for
itself. It's not exactly subtle. Compare the number of times some minor Google
story has been on the front page of a Murdoch paper in the last few months
(dozens) with how often the lead story in all the other anglosphere papers
combined is about Google (I'd be surprised if it was more than one or two).

I say that as somebody who doesn't like Google and doesn't like this ad
'blocking' feature.

------
ehsankia
Because Google's own ads aren't spammy... I don't really understand what WSJ
is trying to say. Honestly every one of their articles about Google sounds
like a unsubstantiated hit job.

It's pretty simple:

1\. Do you agree with the definition of "spammy ads" defined by the coalition?
If not, then what about it would you change? Is anything about it "unfair"?

2\. Do you see any Google ad that breaks the rules and isn't filtered? Do you
think a non-Google ad that doesn't break the rule and is filtered? If so,
point me to it.

So many people claim that Google "owns" the coalition. Why does it even matter
if you can't find any issue in the standard they've come up with?

If you agree with the standard, and the standard is properly enforced, then
what is the problem?

~~~
wand3r
> So many people claim that Google "owns" the coalition. Why does it even
> matter if you can't find any issue in the standard they've come up with?

The answer to this question is self evident. It matters that the people who
write the rules are part of the competition. Further, the people who write the
rules also enforce them and in an opaque way (both technically and
procedurally).

It doesn't matter to me, I use uBlock for adverts.

~~~
ehsankia
Again, the result of said coalition is an open standard. If you can't find any
flaw in said standard, why does it matter where it came from? For all I care,
it could've been made by serial killers. I look at that list and see a
reasonable and fair set of rules that I would like to see enforced.

------
Tech-Noir
> [Google executive Scott Spencer] said that less than 1% of the web’s most
> visited sites—under 1,000 of them—are currently out of compliance with the
> rules

So it's an ad blocker that doesn't block over 99% of ads?

~~~
Ajedi32
It's not really an Ad Blocker. It _does_ block ads in some cases, but that's
not the point.

> While the result of this action is that Chrome users will not see ads on
> sites that consistently violate the Better Ads Standards, our goal is not to
> filter any ads at all but to improve the experience for all web users. As of
> February 12, 42% of sites which were failing the Better Ads Standards have
> resolved their issues and are now passing. This is the outcome we are were
> hoping for — that sites would take steps to fix intrusive ads experiences
> themselves and benefit all web users.

Source: [https://blog.chromium.org/2018/02/how-chromes-ad-
filtering-w...](https://blog.chromium.org/2018/02/how-chromes-ad-filtering-
works.html)

~~~
codegladiator
Sounds like Google Police ?

------
notatoad
how many articles about this do we need?

------
tracker1
I think google shouldn't link to news articles on paywalled sites. And only
index that which is visible in a given article. that's just me though.

------
heypi
Is posting paywalled articles an acceptable thing on here ?

~~~
balls187
Yes.

Click the web link below the article link.

~~~
eli
Which, ironically, is only possible because Google punishes sites with
paywalls in its results.

~~~
SA500
No it no longer does, although it should

