
Chrome will stop displaying ads that are repeatedly flagged as disruptive - kevincennis
https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/browser-web-worth-protecting/
======
TekMol
I wish Google would do something against the so called 'Rogue Redirect Ads' in
their AdSense network. Ads that redirect the parent frame.

When I browse the web on my Android phone, I get redirected to spam every 10
pageviews or so. And no, it's not a problem of the phone. It's a known issue
that ads can break out of their iframe:

[https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/11/08/heres-protect-
rogue...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/11/08/heres-protect-rogue-
redirect-ads-right-now-chrome/)

IMO Javascript should not be allowed in ads at all. Unless that gets
implemented, I have the feeling that all blog posts about improving the user
experience are just lip service.

~~~
y03a
If you're on Android I very highly recommend using Firefox with uBlock Origin.

~~~
sergiosgc
Or Firefox Focus. It quickly became my default browser on Android, with the
regular Firefox left for sites where I maintain a session.

~~~
y03a
Focus is probably the best option on iOS but I don't trust Mozilla to block
tracking the way I want it done, I'm far more comfortable with uBlock Origin
handling it. If I want the extra protection of deleting my cookies and history
on exit I'd rather just start a private tab. Most of the time, I want to stay
logged in on sites.

~~~
mulmen
Why do you distrust Mozilla in this case?

~~~
NoGravitas
For me it's not a matter of trust, it's just that there's no customizability
to the ad-blocking on Focus, even at the level of choosing blocklists to
subscribe to, or adding particular elements to be blocked.

------
aplorbust
Apologies if the comparison offends anyone but every time I see PR (public
relations) about ad-blocking by Google, I see them as a company like Goldman
Sachs, who has taken positions on both sides of a bet, so to speak.

There is a glaring conflict of interest as others have pointed out; it cannot
be ignored. Through strategic acquisitons such as Doubleclick, Google and its
subsidiaries are the largest warehouse of advertising on the www. The company
is the machine that keeps web advertising humming along.

Google wants to keep everyone happy. Users are fed up with advertising. For
example, Google could offer a search engine free of _any_ ads, as they did in
the early days.FN1 They have more than enough cash to do it. This would make
users very happy. Google could try to support itself by selling something,
besides advertising. But this will not happen. Why? (Rhetorical question. Not
asking for an answer. We all know what it is.)

By creating a web-advertising juggernaut and collecting the _maximum allowable
quantity_ information about users through every means legally possible, (far
beyond merely search engine usage) Google has taken a position against users
(the ones who dislike ads) as well as for them (as argued in myriad PR
pieces).

Google is not curbing it own actions (as the #1 promoter of advertising on the
www), instead it is taking aim at advertisers. Some of those could be existing
or potential clients (which might seem intriguing).

But while its clients (be they advertisers, users or others) may experience
"losses", like Goldman (or not; sorry, bad analogy!), Google always "wins".

Any PR piece proclaiming that Google is taking sides with users (for a "better
web") ignores that _they also have taken sides with advertisers_. Google has
big bets on advertising. As everyone knows, users do not contribute
significant inputs to the Google balance sheet; advertisers do.

FN1 At that time one of the Google founders called out advertising as being
something to avoid. Interestingly, there was no "disruptive" vs "non-
disruptive" advertising distinction.

~~~
ubercore
Google has also learned the lesson though that ads which produce a negative
user impression aren't sustainable, and bad for both Google and advertisers.
They have a vested long-term interest in making ads palatable and useful, or
their cash cow goes away. Their incentives mesh with mine -- I would be less
likely to demand ad blocker if ads weren't so disruptive.

~~~
oldcynic
> Their incentives mesh with mine

If that were the case Chrome's disruptive ad blocker would have been released
shortly after the rise of flash ads

If that were the case I would be able to completely opt out of tracking and
accept slightly less targeted ads

We could go on and on here. Suffice to say I _do not_ believe Google's
incentives align with most on the web any more.

~~~
davidcbc
> If that were the case Chrome's disruptive ad blocker would have been
> released shortly after the rise of flash ads

This seems like an odd argument. Are uBlock's incentives unaligned with yours
because they didn't release their adblocker earlier? What does the timing of
the release have to do with anything?

> If that were the case I would be able to completely opt out of tracking and
> accept slightly less targeted ads

You can opt out of tracking and ad targeting
[https://myaccount.google.com/u/1/privacy](https://myaccount.google.com/u/1/privacy)

~~~
oldcynic
> uBlock's incentives unaligned with yours because they didn't release their
> adblocker earlier

Not really a fair comparison - uBlock aren't selling ads. Google are _and have
been for a decade._ There have been many occasions that search has been
compromised via advertising from the days of SERPs being mostly adsense mini
sites years ago. The response to those also took years despite search being
near ruined. Google could have done far more far sooner.

------
troydavis
Meanwhile, Google still hasn't added a way disable auto-playing videos
(regardless of whether a video is muted) in Chrome.

Safari has easy options to set both a default and per-site preferences
([https://support.apple.com/guide/safari/stop-autoplay-
videos-...](https://support.apple.com/guide/safari/stop-autoplay-videos-
ibrw29c6ecf8/mac)), including a "Never Auto-Play" choice. Despite years of
user complaints and a fairly clear resolution to them, Chrome either watered-
down their fix or solved the wrong problem entirely.

~~~
_arvin
Chrome has that also.

Go to chrome://flags, search for Autoplay policy, and select Document user
action is required.

Note that if you use the Imagus extension, this could block some
videos/gifs/etc from playing when you hover over a link.

~~~
driverdan
It doesn't always work. I have that flag enabled and still encounter videos
that autoplay.

~~~
rowyourboat
Note that Firefox' autoplay blocker breaks some video sites because the
Javascript assumes the video is playing when it really isn't. However, with
Firefox, videos never autoplay. Chrome's autoplay does not always work, but it
doesn't seem to break sites.

I can't seem to find the issue, but in the Safari issue tracker, the point was
made that given the way HTML5 video and APIs work, it is impossible to
reliably prevent autoplay without breaking some sites. It seems that Firefox
went for "reliably prevent autoplay" while Chrome went for "without breaking
sites".

FWIW, I switched from Chrome to Firefox because of the autoplay issue.

------
kodablah
Ug, I've been railing against this for a bit now. For anyone who is unclear
what is happening, Chrome downloads a set of partial hashes for sites that are
considered bad by this coalition. They don't provide the full list of sites
(evil). Then if the site matches it, it phones home to get the full hash to
see if it matches that. If it does, it applies the EasyList (non-cosmetic) ad
block rules.

Problems:

* The list is totally opaque (I am wrong, see EDIT 2 below)

* They use the hard work of people like EasyList and subjectively apply it (though not that big of a deal, they do make it free/open for all uses after all)

* They build it into the browser instead of as an extension or working with the existing ad-block community

I urge everyone to keep with uBO and the like. How anyone can be for NN and
then think a coalition can be an on-by-default gatekeeper of good or bad web
items I'll never understand. At this point, I have a hard time separating
browser from ISP wrt end user control and limited choice (especially for the
masses who aren't familiar w/ these kinds of details).

EDIT: I should note that this is the same mechanism by which the safe browsing
lists work that tell you a page may be bad. For consistency, I disagree with
that too of course, but I find the motives and targets here to be much more
sinister. I would also say switch to FF, but they also use the secret safe
browsing lists, so they'll probably switch to this as well. I say find a
Chromium/Gecko based browser w/ all the ancillary shit like this removed.

EDIT 2: There is a method of obtaining the entire list via the API, see
comments below. I was wrong about the opacity and stand corrected. Still
doesn't alleviate the concerns around gatekeeping. I wonder if Google would
let me keep a running update of this list in GitHub so we can all watch
changes and other things like adblockers could use it.

~~~
redm
My problem is that Google was a founder of Better Ads and its designed to 1)
protect their ad business, 2) stop people from wanting ad blockers, and 3)
make the web nicer. Huge emphasis on #1.

Whenever you have the browser maker, and punitive actions controlled by the
same party, and arbitrarily, its a recipe for disaster.

If Google really cared, they should spin Chrome off to a foundation, provide
it a large amount of funding, and totally step aside.

Having the #1 web browser and the largest ad network, controlled by Google,
even if you agree with what they are doing, is a recipe for disaster.

Google, of course, MUST protect its ad business, let's call his what it is.

~~~
eli
So because of who they are Google should not be allowed to attempt to improve
the quality of ads on the internet?

Why would Chrome being run a foundation that is funded overwhelmingly by
Alphabet make a difference? Chromium is already public -- aren't there already
forks that focus on privacy and ad blocking?

~~~
manigandham
Google owns the DoubleClick platform - the largest ad server with the most
sites and running the biggest ad exchange in the world. They approve, serve,
and support all of the intrusive ad formats in the first place, even on their
own websites.

This is absolutely not about quality but a political move to counteract ad
blocking extensions and companies. While the intent seems noble, it's likely
to cause no real improvements compared to better existing options like not
serving these formats at all.

~~~
euyyn
As long as websites display annoying ads, people will have the incentive to
use ad-blockers, no matter how polished and non-intrusive DoubleClick ads be.

------
panarky
_" It’s important to note that some sites affected by this change may also
contain Google ads.

To us, your experience on the web is a higher priority than the money that
these annoying ads may generate — even for us."_

Many of us are wired to see changes like this as a power grab camouflaged with
flowery words, or possibly another step on the slippery slope to censorship
and government control.

We've been trained that every corporate action is selfish, by definition
against our interests.

But Google has demonstrated over the years that they're willing to sacrifice
their short-term gains to maximize their long-term gains.

Since their long-term gains depend on a vibrant, open web, sometimes their
long-term selfish actions are actually in our interest, too.

~~~
ksk
>To us, your experience on the web is a higher priority than the money that
these annoying ads may generate — even for us."

That's begs the question - Why were those ads approved by Google in the first
place? They were the source of the problem to begin with !! Also, before we
rush to judgement, how much revenue were those ads generating for Google in
the first place? I would respect them a bit more if they actually are taking a
hit on this.

>But Google has demonstrated over the years that they're willing to sacrifice
their short-term gains to maximize their long-term gains.

How have they demonstrated that? Could you elaborate?

~~~
panarky
>> But Google has demonstrated over the years that they're willing to
sacrifice their short-term gains to maximize their long-term gains.

> How have they demonstrated that? Could you elaborate?

Before Google, web search results were rotten. Advertisers could push their
sites onto the front page, and paid ads were indistinguishable from organic
results.

Google's innovation was to deliver pure search results with the highest
relevance, with zero influence from advertisers. Ads were separate and labeled
as such.

By sacrificing near-term ad revenue, Google built trust with users, and won
search in the long-term.

Other examples:

Google could have kept Android closed and charged for licenses. But by open-
sourcing it and allowing competitors to use it, they sacrificed short-term
license revenue to build a much larger ecosystem.

Google capitulated to government demands that they censor search results in
China. But then they reversed course, exited mainland China, and sacrificed
revenue from that massive market. Long-term, active censorship would damage
Google's reputation.

~~~
goatsi
>Advertisers could push their sites onto the front page, and paid ads were
indistinguishable from organic results.

>Google's innovation was to deliver pure search results with the highest
relevance, with zero influence from advertisers. Ads were separate and labeled
as such.

Have you tried using Google without an adblocker recently?

If I search "buy a car" using Chrome on Android the entire screen of my phone
is filled with ads that I need to scroll past to get to the "pure" search
results. The only indication that they are ads is a tiny box 1/8 the size of a
fingernail. The top result on the embedded Google maps box is also an ad.

~~~
panarky
You might want to get your phone checked for malware.

I search with Chrome on Android every day, with no ad blockers, and this never
happens.

~~~
goatsi
Here is my Google search experience:
[https://my.mixtape.moe/gtfvnm.png](https://my.mixtape.moe/gtfvnm.png)
[https://my.mixtape.moe/ybfhao.png](https://my.mixtape.moe/ybfhao.png)

Very polite of the malware to put a tiny ad tag on the ads it is managing to
inject into a HSTS pinned website on a browser that doesn't allow any addons
or extensions. I also like they way they perfect match Google's site design.

------
jakobegger
This sounds like a win/win policy.

1) Users that tolerate some ads no longer need to install an adblocker.

2) Legit advertisers don't get their ads blocked because fewer people use ad
blockers

3) Crappy advertisers go out of business.

Now lets hope that GDPR manages to get rid of the ubiquitous tracking and the
web might actually become a nicer place again!

~~~
larrik
Of course, ads with exploits and malware that inject into your computer can be
invisible and hard to detect as "intrusive", which this doesn't seem to
recognize or handle. I'll stick with ad-block.

~~~
eli
This justification always reminds me of the advice to run SSH on a non-
standard port.

Sure, I guess that makes you less of a target for bad actors, but if your
browser can be compromised by simply visiting a website, that's a serious
problem that's going to bite you whether you block ads or not.

~~~
kakarot
What are you talking about?

You're saying that theoretically, because there may be worse exploits from
advanced actors that can target you for visiting a website, you shouldn't
worry about basic security and whitelisting?

Do you not lock your door at night, either, just because someone could smash
through your windows?

~~~
BenjiWiebe
The SSH on a nonstandard port thing... I do it so I know if I see a failed
login attempt, it's someone who is trying a lot harder than the average
attacker and something I should investigate more fully.

~~~
kakarot
Correct, most people (including myself) use it more for filtering noise than
increased security by obscurity.

Which makes it an even less effective analogy.

------
kretor
It's important to note that the "flagging" is not done by users, but by Google
themselves. And they do this based on the Better Ads Standards. After the
initial flagging, the site owners are notified, and have 30 days to fix it,
until the ads on the site are blocked. They then of course can still fix it,
and get the ads unblocked.

------
YCode
I wonder if I can hire a botnet to flag my competition out of business.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'll one-up you: can we crowdfund a botnet to flag _all ads, from everyone_?

~~~
ThePadawan
That seems like the thing that (back in my day) 4chan would be 100% behind.

~~~
earenndil
Look up adnauseum. They're still 100% behind that.

~~~
dooglius
Even they still have exceptions turned on by default [0].

[0] [https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#what-is-the-
effs...](https://github.com/dhowe/AdNauseam/wiki/FAQ#what-is-the-effs-do-not-
track-standard-and-how-it-is-supported-in-adnauseam)

------
twhb
Let’s talk about “acceptable ads”. Do you think they exist?

I don’t. I avoid ads for two reasons: first that they’re fundamentally biased,
manipulative information sources, second that they drain attention, screen
space, battery life, etc. I’m much more worried about the first than the
second, yet “acceptable ads” (partially) addresses the second without touching
the first.

~~~
acdha
> I avoid ads for two reasons: first that they’re fundamentally biased,
> manipulative information sources, second that they drain attention, screen
> space, battery life, etc.

Neither of these points need to be true. Consider if someone had a text ad
which said “We made widgets. Click here to see our widgets”. There's nothing
manipulative about that, it need not use more than a small amount of network
or CPU to deliver, and all but the most extreme members of the no logo camp
would tend to agree that there's nothing manipulative about it.

~~~
twhb
Are you saying this as somebody who advertises, or who views ads?

~~~
acdha
As someone who doesn't like broad, sweeping statements which are incorrect.

For the record, I don't buy ads and I subscribe to sites like ArsTechnica.com
which allow me to pay to disable ads.

~~~
twhb
I don't believe it's incorrect, but thanks for letting me know you do.
Genuinely - like I said, I just want to talk about “acceptable ads”.

~~~
acdha
Here's why I said it's incorrect:

> first that they’re fundamentally biased, manipulative information sources

Is an NPR-style “this program is sponsored by <big company>” manipulative or
biased? What about the Amazon ads you get on a Google search for most consumer
products, where it's clear who paid for them, they make no claim that the
product is the best product or that they have the lowest prices, only stating
that you can buy one from them, etc.?

> second that they drain attention, screen space, battery life,

Do Google text ads really do any of those? What about a static JPEG?

Remember, I'm not saying that the state of online advertising isn't terrible
but that it's not fundamentally so. The industry has raced to the bottom but
it'd clear up in days if publishers stopped allowing offensive ads to run on
their sites or Chrome started actively blocking them.

------
mancerayder
Does this include something that flashes / moves (within its self-contained
box) even though it doesn't take over the screen?

How is it that it's not outrageous to people that in the middle of a news
article, a box with flashing colors and a picture of a woman in a bikini isn't
something obviously extremely undesirable? The activity of reading requires
concentration, if you're reading something that requires thought, that is. I'm
baffled that our tolerance level for this didn't drop to the pitchfork level.

------
olegkikin
I feel like they will get sued for that extremely quickly, considering their
dominating position (Chrome) and being in the ad-serving business at the same
time.

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Br...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Browser_usage_share%2C_2009%E2%80%932016%2C_StatCounter.svg/1200px-
Browser_usage_share%2C_2009%E2%80%932016%2C_StatCounter.svg.png)

~~~
azernik
Generally American and European anti-trust law as currently interpreted only
cares about harm to the consumer.

~~~
i_cant_speel
Less competition is generally harmful to the consumer.

~~~
avs733
conceptually. However, the metric we use to dictacte that conceptual argument
is what screws us (Americans). We have chosen increase in price as the primary
metric.

It becomes the responsibility of the accuser to prove and provide evidence of
increased prices based on monopoly position. The Exponent podcast did a nice
description of this last summer I believe (not sure what episode).

------
criley2
I would like to take a second off topic and point out that the design of their
blog^1 is really atrocious for a number of reasons

\- Massive, truly gargantuan header and footer that steals 40-50% of usable
screen space for.... white space

\- Terrible type selection that is kerned too closely and is too thin to
comfortably read on a white background. Eye strain is SIGNIFICANT.

Like, come the heck on Google. You're trying to make the internet a better
place. Maybe practice what you preach and follow Day 1, 101 course UX
principles like "choose a type that is legible" and "don't use half of your
article vertical space for pointless globs of white space in your header and
footer"

1: [https://i.imgur.com/0mJjdMq.png](https://i.imgur.com/0mJjdMq.png)

------
billysielu
How about allowing us to install Adblock on Chrome for Android?

~~~
purell_hack
This is why I started using Firefox on Android. I need uBlock to browse the
web safely.

~~~
lima
Same for me. The nightly build is much faster than the current stable too.

------
pqwEfkvjs
Just use Firefox with Adblock/Ublock/Noscript. Even better, turn off
Javascript and you'll never see an ad again.

Unfortunately, there are too many devs who build their sites that completely
get crippled if you by default don't allow Javascript.

Even if you enable it, the site may still be doomed, because it tries to load
fonts, libraries, css and who-knows-what kind of s __* from external sites.

F __ __ _g newage apatheistic anarchist hippie devs. Don 't bundle in tons of
dependencies to your freaking sites. If one of the dependencies goes down, so
does your site. F_ __* you! And f __* those whorebag ads!

------
apeace
I appreciate the step forward, but what I really want is for my browser to
block:

* Battery-draining junk code

* Bandwidth-hogging videos and GIFs

* Spreading information about me cross-origin

I would take an annoying page-covering PNG that I can close, over a tiny
banner doing animations in Javascript, an auto-play video, a huge GIF which is
basically a video, or the countless trackers which build databases about every
site I visit.

As such this change will not entice me to disable my ad blocker. Not even
close.

~~~
lolsal
Genuinely curious: How would you programmatically identify "battery-draining
junk code"?

Also, what is your threshold for 'bandwidth-hogging' videos and GIFs? Do you
trust content-lengths from the server?

~~~
apeace
I don't have a solution other than whitelisting or blacklisting, which is what
I use the ad blockers for.

------
skywhopper
I found immediately ironic that I was reading a post about how Google values
the user so much that they built Chrome, a browser that gets out of your way
and gives more of your screen over to the websites you are viewing but the
site where this article is posted covers half my screen with site-navigation
chrome that is 80% whitespace and that pops in and out semi-unpredictably.
Sigh.

------
aj7
If someone else said this already please forgive me. The worst ads are the one
with a phony close X. You click it and you are driven to the webpage anyway.
It seems to me you could test for this.

------
jrochkind1
When I'm trying to visit some page, and I get an unrelated spammy popover that
is hard to get rid of... I've gathered cause I know how this stuff works that
it's _probably_ from a misbehaving google ad, but I don't know how I'd
identify that to flag it, or if I'd spend the time to do so. I usually just
get out of there.

------
redm
It seems to me that it's irrelevant if you agree with Google's Ad Strategy or
not. The problem is that Google gets to make the choices, they are now in a
position to decide, via the proxy of Better Ads, whats allowed on the "Open
Web". IMHO, this is just one more step in a less-open Internet.

------
herodotus
Be nice if Chrome offered, for a fee, a premium, ad-free experience, AND they
shared the profits from that service with the visited web sites (in lieu of Ad
placement revenue).

~~~
Ajedi32
Sounds like you'd be interested in:
[https://contributor.google.com/v/beta](https://contributor.google.com/v/beta)

~~~
herodotus
Nice! (But not yet available in Canada).

------
kevincennis
I know that title isn't 100% right, but (a) the one on the blog is pretty much
useless and (b) a more correct title would've been too long. Open to
suggestions.

~~~
kretor
The title ("Chrome will stop displaying ads that are repeatedly flagged as
disruptive") is wrong in a couple of ways.

According to the post:

"... Chrome will stop showing all ads on sites that repeatedly display these
most disruptive ads after they’ve been flagged.

To determine which ads not to show, we’re relying on the Better Ads Standards
from the the Coalition for Better Ads, an industry group dedicated to
improving the experience of the ads we see on the web. ..."

They are a bit vage in this post, but as we know from other posts and press
briefings, this means:

The site owners will get a notice when Google has found that their site is
displaying ads not compliant with the Better Ads Standards. When they don't
fix this until after 30 days, all ads on the site are blocked, even those
complying with the standards. The site owners can then of course still fix it,
and get removed from the block list.

So the "flagging" is actually done by Google, and means the owners of the site
get a notice.

------
makecheck
We really, _really_ don’t need Coalitions, Committees and other crap to tell
us what ads are acceptable. This stuff is so straightforward that it’s mind-
boggling we are still debating it:

1\. Don’t be annoying: NO sound, NO video, NO auto-anything, NO flashy
animation, NO obnoxious bright colors. What is _so_ wrong with the discreet
images and text that newspapers and magazines have used since forever?

2\. Don’t disrespect me: NO treating my data plan as an infinite well for
downloading crap, NO ad networks that can’t be bothered to have proper
security, NO obscenely-complex tracking scripts, and NO trickery to make me
click (pop-anything, delayed loading, etc.).

------
natch
How about if Google stops taking ads for malware like MacKeeper on YouTube?
Speaking to Google: you guys are OK with promoting malware in exchange for
money?

------
andybak
OK. Outbrain and Taboola are pretty disruptive to my sanity and peace of mind.
I wonder if we can get them blocked.

~~~
cpeterso
I made a short blocklist (compatible with uBlock Origin and Ad Block Plus)
that just blocks these crap ads served by Taboola, Outbrain, and the like:

[https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-
blocklist/](https://github.com/cpeterso/clickbait-blocklist/)

------
theandrewbailey
> When we built Chrome, we wanted to create a way for people to interact with
> the magic that is the web, without the browser getting in the way. We
> created a browser that took up minimal space on your screen...

Only for websites clutter that free space with hideously large and empty
headers and unmovable footers that cover a good 20% to 30% of vertical space
that would be better spent on the actual content of the page. (If I want to
navigate your site, give me link to your homepage, and I'll take it from
there.) Oh, and lets not forget those social sharing icons, even for people
who don't social network!

Let's rub salt into the wound:

> (These ads are) _designed to be disruptive and often stand in the way of
> people using their browsers for their intended purpose—connecting them to
> content and information._

------
ibdf
Just take a look at this ad on the Verge
([https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/5/16966530/intel-vaunt-
smart...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/5/16966530/intel-vaunt-smart-
glasses-announced-ar-video)). It takes 90% of the screen, and they wonder why
people use ad blockers.

Screenshot: [https://ibb.co/f1eOGS](https://ibb.co/f1eOGS)

~~~
vog
Do you have a screenshot? I don't feel like enabling JS for that site.
Moreover, a screenshot would keep your argument understandable for readers who
might encounter your comment in a year or later, when that site changed their
layout or perhaps doesn't exist anymore.

~~~
ibdf
Sure thing -> [https://ibb.co/f1eOGS](https://ibb.co/f1eOGS)

Huge ad with autoplay video.

~~~
vog
Thanks! Now I understand what you mean.

------
wuliwong
I certainly like the idea of blocking these types of ads at first blush. I
don't know much about the source of the "disruptive" label so that could be a
bone of contention. I would assume there will be some UI element saying that
Chrome blocked a "disruptive ad" similar to when it blocks popups but they
didn't describe that in the post. Overall, I am optimistic.

~~~
Ajedi32
Yeah, it'll be basically the same as pop-ups:
[https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/chrome-
adblocker](https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/chrome-adblocker)

And the standards for what is considered "disruptive" are here:
[https://www.betterads.org/standards/](https://www.betterads.org/standards/)

------
Gargoyle
Yeah, hard to see how this could possibly go wrong.

------
Overtonwindow
So..if we all flag every ad as disruptive will Chrome stop displaying all ads?

~~~
kretor
The "flagging" is done by Google, not users. And according to the post:
"Chrome will stop showing all ads on sites that repeatedly display these most
disruptive ads after they’ve been flagged."

------
tripzilch
Or users could, you know, use an extension to block all of them. For their own
security and peace of mind.

------
throw7
There's no mention if you can disable this or opt out.

I'd rather them have a way for me to disable the floating videos usually on
news sites.

~~~
Ajedi32
You can disable it in content settings. It's a new permission, just like
Notifications, JavaScript, and Sound. Basically you just have to turn on the
"Allow sites to show Annoying Ads" permission.

------
joering2
In the near future article on HN frontpage: "large Chinese bot network to
notify Google of dangerous site to hire".

You want your competitor site to be down, our 100,000 strong unique IP
addresses bot network will take 2 weeks to notify Google of a harmful website.
Just give us an URL of your competitor and wire us $10,000 and watch them
being wiped out of the net! Guaranteed!

------
pq0ak2nnd
I use an ad blocker so I rarely see them. Does this mean my vote doesn't
count?

------
bfrog
Would that include google ads? Because I personally find 99,% of ads to be
disruptive

~~~
paulirwin
From the article:

"It’s important to note that some sites affected by this change may also
contain Google ads. To us, your experience on the web is a higher priority
than the money that these annoying ads may generate—even for us."

~~~
craftyguy
For some reason I seriously doubt Google is going to take a hit on their #1
source of revenue so that users have a better 'experience'

~~~
eli
People having a terrible experience with ads is what leads them to install an
ad blocker, which is a much bigger risk to Google's ad business

------
markdog12
Any way to disable this? For instance if you're already using an adblocker.

------
Grue3
*) Google ads cannot be flagged as disruptive. Other conditions apply.

------
_ao789
about time!

------
nukeop
All ads are disruptive, as they are designed to draw your attention. If you
can ignore an ad it did not serve the purpose it was created for. Does it mean
Chrome blocks all ads now? Don't hold your breath.

~~~
akkat
One of the few exceptions that I can think of would be skymall. It is a
magazine with only ads for overpriced useless stuff that you can read about
(and maybe buy) while on a flight. I would normally read the entire magazine
during the boring flight.

------
thrownaway954
kind of funny that they are doing it on Feb,15th... the day after Valentine's
Day in the US.

~~~
saagarjha
Why is the date relevant?

~~~
thrownaway954
It's the day after Valentine's Day in the US... the most advertised, over-
hyped, over-extended and shoved down your throat day of the year for us guys.

~~~
saagarjha
Never experienced this, sorry

------
username223
"That's a nice website you have there. It would be a shame if you couldn't
display ads."

How is this anything other than a hilariously transparent shake-down? An ad
company that controls both ends of the ad pipeline (Chrome and Adsense) is
"protecting" people not by blocking terrible ads, but by blocking all ads on
sites it deems "disruptive."

~~~
mseebach
A shakedown usually involves an opportunity to pay to avoid the consequences.
At the very least, it certainly isn't "hilariously transparent".

~~~
username223
I assume Google's customer support staff can contact the owners of blacklisted
sites and sell them more Adsense inventory, or encourage them to stop doing
business with competing ad vendors.

~~~
6d6b73
"Google's customer support" \- hehe, that's a good one..

