
Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser - kristianc
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-ad-blocking-feature-in-popular-chrome-browser-1492643233
======
heavymark
At first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad
blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would
incredibly increase the number of ads blocked.

My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google
ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them
as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use their built in
blocker rather than downloading a third party extension which would highly
likely block there ads. And if people have a built in blocker that blocks the
mostly bad ads, the people would start to hate ads less and be okay with 'good
ads'. Also since people wouldn't use third party blockers as much those
companies would go out business more likely.

It's a very risky move on Google's part, so would be a bit surprised if it
happens. But doing nothing, is equally if not more risky in the long run for
there business model.

~~~
kesor
The "ad blocker" companies will go out of business? ARE YOU INSANE?!

Google is a frigging AD MONOPOLY ... its their major business for crying out
loud. And the same company that controls a HUGE portion of all the Internet Ad
business is creating an "Ad Blocker".

And this doesn't ring any bells anywhere?

No friend, they are not trying to put "ad blocker" companies out of business.
They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business.

~~~
ehsankia
I don't think it's about putting "ad blockers" out of business. Hell, they're
not businesses, uBlock is OSS. I think the idea is, people get so annoyed by
poor ads that is in your face that they get pushed beyond their "threshold"
and get an ad blocker. If ads are used with moderation, most people won't get
annoyed enough to go out of their way and install a traditional ad blocker.

Bad ads ruin it for Google. They teach users to mentally block ALL ads. It's
like people abusing antibiotics and building a resistance.

~~~
muse900
Or another example of how I see ads on the internet:

You walking down the street having a guy handing out leaflets, trying to force
his leaflet on you... You're most likely to get annoyed by them.

There is a little stand at the corner having leaflets, without anyone yelling
in your face or handing it out, you're more likely to go grab one if the
product fits you.

Walking to work every morning I have created my real life AdBlock, where I
just ignore people handing stuff. (Not their fault... just businesses not
understanding how to change ways)

~~~
snackai
Well here comes Google, shoving leaflets up your ass because they think their
leaflets are special and more acceptable!

------
aesthetics1
"In one possible application Google is considering, it may choose to block all
advertising that appears on sites with offending ads, instead of the
individual offending ads themselves. In other words, site owners may be
required to ensure all of their ads meet the standards, or could see all
advertising across their sites blocked in Chrome."

I like this approach. It punishes site owners for running malicious or badly-
behaved ads. I think this is a step forward. I hate blocking ads across the
board - I just want to stop the intrusive and dangerous variety. I can
tolerate the rest.

~~~
oDot
I like it too, but isn't Google in a conflict of interest here?

~~~
dcow
No because all of their ads will meet standards. I wouldn't be surprised if a
competing lower-quality ad agency sues Google over this.

~~~
sjg007
Except it's your device, you can choose to block ads.

~~~
kesor
And what about the grandmother of the guy next door? What about the other
99.999% of internet users who are not you?

------
kenshaw
My cynical side can't help but think they will do this first, then later
disable uBlock / other ad blockers (or the APIs they rely on) and claim that
"we can do it better." I can't imagine that this isn't a violation of some
kind of law (RICO, antitrust, or otherwise), but I don't imagine this would
ever be prosecuted.

~~~
derefr
There's really no way to disable _all_ ad-blocking in a browser, even if the
browser-vendor wanted desperately to do so, because—whether ad-stripping
_browser extensions_ exist or not—ad-stripping _HTTP proxies_ (e.g. Privoxy)
will always exist.

And if you think users couldn't handle _using_ one of those, there's nothing
stopping someone from making an e.g. "Privoxy configurator + blocklist
updater" browser extension that just serves as a client GUI to your ad-
stripping proxy's control channel. (Or giving the daemon a system-tray icon
that launches an Electron GUI or something.)

The development of ad-blockers outside of the browser kind of stalled ~5 years
ago, but only because everyone has been pretty satisfied with the browser
extension solution to the problem. Take it away, and other solutions will just
come back into play, with all the modern lessons learned from building the
browser-extensions brought in.

~~~
userbinator
The only issue with that is HTTPS, which Privoxy currently can't handle (
[https://www.privoxy.org/faq/misc.html](https://www.privoxy.org/faq/misc.html)
) and will become even more of a problem with the current "encrypt everything"
trend. Certificate pinning and all the other stuff aimed at making TLS harder
to MITM also gets in the way of effective adblocking proxies. The only one I
know of which can MITM SSL on Windows is Proxomitron, and you still have to
patch the browser(s).

~~~
jerf
HTTPS proxying is perfectly possible, though. IMHO it's one of those bizarre
cases where the code to implement it isn't even that hard necessarily. The
challenge is all in the fact that A: more people _think_ they understand the
HTTPS security model than _actually_ understand the HTTPS security model and
B: it's really easy to write code that "works" in the sense that it allows you
to proxy pages, but allows you to proxy _too many_ pages _too easily_.
Programmers generally acquire a deep and generally-mostly-justified belief
that getting code to do the thing they want it to do is the hard part, so code
that appears to work is likely more correct than broken, but this is one case
where it's quite shockingly easy to write code that works far too "well" and
all the challenge is actually in writing all the test cases for when it is
_supposed_ to fail to proxy the page.

That's a lot of headwinds on a bit of code, but they are possible to overcome,
if the motivation, and perhaps even more importantly, the humility is there.

~~~
derefr
It'd be nice to lift out Chromium's own network stack into a library (as a
continuously-rebased-from-upstream derivative fork), and then build a proxy
that made requests using said network stack. Then you'd get all the HSTS/cert-
pinning logic, the CORS and only-N-requests-per-host-at-a-time policies, and a
very good LRU cache implementation, "for free", for your proxy daemon.

Heck, if you don't mind an extra 100MB of memory consumption, you could
probably throw a "correct" proxy-daemon together in Javascript by relying on
the browser network stack of a [headless] Electron instance.

------
gorhill
Ads are a subset of a larger issue: the out of control data mining and
tracking[1]. Focusing only on whether an ad is visually pleasant or not does
not address the larger issue -- which larger issue is the foremost reason
people should install a content blocker, to get back in the control seat of
their _user agent_.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484](https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/849263615634964484)
=>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMBm.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8ka33oUMAAGMBm.jpg:large)

[https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/803998582227533825](https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/803998582227533825)
=>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyhfYyWWEAAH8zq.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyhfYyWWEAAH8zq.jpg:large)

[https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/649256227277537280](https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/649256227277537280)
(visually, a page with no ads) =>
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQKfGQBWoAAhNc7.png:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQKfGQBWoAAhNc7.png:large)

~~~
MarkMc
For you it's 'out of control'. For me it's 'the price I'm happy to pay to get
what I want'.

~~~
rodovich
I'm glad you understand what that price is and are happy to pay it. I
personally have a hard time evaluating the price because the _whats_ and
_hows_ of a site's tracking seldom are disclosed in a clear and concise manner
that I can review ad understand before the tracking occurs. And even if it
was, that would be a lot of friction to do for every site I might visit.

I find it much easier to control by deciding on a policy up front and letting
my browser help me enforce it.

~~~
MarkMc
The problem with that approach is that you are going against the wishes of the
person who produced the website. To my mind if someone creates something of
value, the creator should have a say over how that something is consumed. To
use something without the permission of the owner feels a bit dirty. If I
don't agree to the terms of use for a website I simply won't use it.

~~~
rodovich
> To my mind if someone creates something of value, the creator should have a
> say over how that something is consumed. To use something without the
> permission of the owner feels a bit dirty.

I agree. That's why I want a say in how my data is consumed.

~~~
MarkMc
Person A: "I created a web page. I'll let you view it if you also look at this
advertisement"

Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just view the page
without the advertisement"

\-------------------

Person A: "I've built this car. I'll let you drive it if you keep the speed
under 60 miles per hour"

Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just drive your car and
go at whatever speed I like"

\-------------------

Person A: "I baked a cake. I'll let you eat it if you give me $5"

Person B: "No, I don't agree to your condition. I'll just eat the cake and
give you nothing"

~~~
ethics_gradient
Privacy really isn't transactional, it's a ecological issue. There's no way
for you to make that decision without (as a group) impacting others. A choice
to not use Google or Facebook can now be crippling for some people, and fairly
bothersome for most.

------
krackers
I suppose Google's own ad network will be unaffected, thereby "encouraging"
sites to move to Google's network for a no-block guarantee?

~~~
Sir_Substance
Yup. I'm a big supporter of ad blockers, but this is a conflict of interest
the size of Everest.

If Google is really interested in ensuring good user experiences, they should
work with the EFF to set up a fund of some kind to support this work, and then
have EFF manage it.

~~~
refulgentis
I'm not sure offering prime position to a relatively random tech foundation
that Google donates to will play better than relying on an independent
advertising industry group. Given. A choice between indiscriminate regulation
by a foundation of my industry, and an independent organization of an industry
choosing to self-regulate, companies should prefer the second.

------
danbruc
The »Coalition for Better Ads« is just the same as »Acceptable Ads« - we will
try not annoy you with flashing ads. Both entirely fail to address privacy
issues. Just search for »tracking« [1][2] or »privacy« on those sites, there
is nothing at all. Not acceptable for me.

[1]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:betterads.org](https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:betterads.org)

[2]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:acceptableads....](https://www.google.com/search?q=tracking+site:acceptableads.com)

------
pookeh
Hmm...

Step 1. Surprise the world with better ad blocking tech than what currently
exists.

Step 2. When trust in tech is established, start blocking ads from other ad
networks by calling them foul. Do this slowly so it's not obvious.

Step 3. Wait for customers of other ad networks to notice their ads are not
effective.

Step 4. Steal customers...Profit.

~~~
taurath
Thats just mutually assured destruction - all IE/edge browsers would start
blocking all google ads, firefox would block everyone, chrome would black all
not google ads, and half the internet economy collapses

~~~
BillinghamJ
Microsoft doesn't have any serious advertising business. Firefox has none. So
how exactly could it be mutually assured destruction?

More likely is an antitrust lawsuit.

------
ortusdux
My first instinct is that this feature will involve google contributor, where
users can block ads and still send revenue to sites they frequent.
[https://contributor.google.com/](https://contributor.google.com/)

I went to check on the status of that program and got this message:

 _We’re launching a new and improved Contributor in early 2017!_

~~~
acdha
It'd be a neat middle option: display safe ads in Chrome with Google providing
assurances that impressions/clicks aren't bots without the crazy messes of
JavaScript currently used for that, and put a “Pay this site directly and
never see ads” button next to it so people who really don't like ads can opt-
out.

------
knob
Honorable mention goes to Adnauseam
([https://adnauseam.io/](https://adnauseam.io/)). It is an extension for
Firefox and Chrome, which clicks on almost every ad. Hopefully, costing
advertisers money. The interesting part is: Google removed Adnauseum from
their Chrome Extensions. If you anyway install it, every Chrome restart
requires that you re-enable the extension.

I like the extension... the advertisers are costing me money by consuming
bandwidth, and slowing down everything... well I will try to hit them where it
hurts.

~~~
chc
There's a pretty significant difference there, though. They're costing you a
small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the content that you apparently
want to look at, while you're costing them money just to be malicious. If you
don't want to look at the content, just don't. If you want to look at the
content but don't want to see ads, use an ad blocker. Punishing them for
trying to stay afloat while giving you something you want is just pathological
behavior.

~~~
literallycancer
You can rationalize it however you want, but there's only two possibilities.

1\. People like you, who say "but I can just ignore ads" are right, and ad
companies are about to go out of the business.

2\. People who are convinced that ads don't affect them are wrong.

It doesn't seem like ad companies are struggling to me? So the logical
conclusion is that ignoring ads doesn't work.

Now on the retaliation. Anyone trying to expose me to ads is aggressively
trying to compromise my decision making process. Since they started, I see
nothing wrong with defending myself by increasing their costs.

>They're costing you a small amount of bandwidth in order to provide the
content that you apparently want to look at

The real cost is that your decisions are compromised.

------
partiallypro
So, Google...largest ad company in the world is going to start blocking its
competitors ads and white listing their own. How is this not going to end in
an FTC law suit? Sounds super shady, I know Google is a darling, but ask
yourself if Microsoft had as much advertising market share as Google and they
did this...would you still be ok with it? If the answer is no, then you should
see that Google is possibly not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts
and has a long term strategy to snuff out all remaining competition while
retaining their own market share and revenues...which ad blockers have greatly
effected.

------
seibelj
As someone who uses ublock origin and has been blocking ads for many years, I
will consider turning it off if this is effective. My problem is not with ads
themselves, it's with terrible ads.

~~~
GhotiFish
some terrible ads don't look terrible, but instead behave terribly. Violating
your privacy, Consuming your bandwidth, ect. How would you recognize these
except to audit them yourself? If you read the criteria from the coalition for
better ads:

    
    
        ...the following types of ad experiences fell beneath the initial
        Better Ads Standard: pop-up ads, prestitial ads, ads with density 
        greater than 30%, flashing animated ads, auto-play video ads with 
        sound, poststitial ads with countdown, full-screen scrollover ads, and 
        large sticky ads.
    

In other words, privacy compromising is not considered bad behavior. Nor is
exorbitant use of bandwidth, It seems their focus is merely on what the
average consumer would consider toxic.

same source as the story: [https://www.betterads.org/coalition-for-better-ads-
releases-...](https://www.betterads.org/coalition-for-better-ads-releases-
initial-better-ads-standards-for-desktop-and-mobile-web/)

~~~
harwoodleon
This is where it will fail (if indeed it is true).

Privacy is not a massive concern for people, but it is a concern. It's enough
of a concern for people to mistrust the brand serving the adverts - google.

Considering how much google relies on its brand, trust is a big part of the
reason why people entrust google with their often very private searches.

People don't like advertising for lot of reasons, that's why they use ad
blockers and not ad filters.

This is why googles attempt to introduce a block on advertising is like a
salesman attempting to stop people from cold calling.

------
gigatexal
Whoa. A company where 85%+ of its revenue comes from ads and over that owns a
really popular browser is going to block ads? Could be a power play to give
Google even more control over advertisers

~~~
mpeg
This isn't about controlling advertiser spend at all. It's about controlling
publisher supply.

Publishers have other choices for ad supply, Google is not the most lucrative,
but it's the best for high volume so it's everywhere, because people need to
get their fill rates.

If a major browser like Chrome starts punishing publishers for not policing
their supply, it'll only benefit the big networks.

(I'm actually very skeptical of this article's claims...)

------
mike-cardwell
Maybe time to stop using and recommending Chrome? I heard of this browser
called "Firefox" which isn't developed by an advertising company.

~~~
pluma
As a web developer you can take my Chrom(e|ium) from my cold dead hands.

I tried out Firefox for a week this year and the experience didn't come
anywhere close to that of using Chrome, not only for development but also as a
user. Heck, even Electrolysis is still a mess with half the extensions still
blocking it.

~~~
literallycancer
I like how Chrome still doesn't let you turn off the downloads bar showing up
when you download something. After 10 years, "it's a feature" guys.

It's really beyond my understanding how a megacorp like Google has a product
with worse UX than old Opera which was developed by what, a hundred people,
maybe?

------
satysin
Google has to do _something_ about ads IMHO. On the desktop it isn't so bad as
we have extensions such as uBlock Origin but Chrome on Android is a truly
awful experience on some sites.

Just yesterday I tapped a news story from Google Now only to be greeted with a
full screen and _vibrating_ phone ad a few seconds after the story loaded.
Totally unacceptable and from a story promoted by Google within Google Now!

The big issue for Google is clearly conflict of interest.

But like I and others have said something needs to be done to sort out the
mess that is web advertising. We need industry standards on what is acceptable
and anything that isn't gets blocked.

~~~
executesorder66
> On the desktop it isn't so bad as we have extensions such as uBlock Origin
> but Chrome on Android is a truly awful experience on some sites.

Yeah. If only Google allowed uBlock Origin to be installed on Chrome for
mobile they wouldn't need to create their own adblocker. /s

------
65827
Looking forward to ublock origin no longer working in chrome on whatever
pretense, that's obviously the end game here.

------
gavinpc
Who is clicking on these ads, anyway? I've never understood how this adds up
to profit (for the advertisers).

~~~
lucasmullens
A small percentage of users click ads that I assume make up for the users who
don't.

And for the record, I click ads sometimes. Mainly on Facebook, because they're
impressively relevant. I've discovered quite a few apps and products that I
like through ads.

------
hackuser
Who is the Coalition for Better Ads? Their About page gives no names. Is
Google a member? How influential is Google? Whose interests does the Coalition
serve?

[https://www.betterads.org/about/](https://www.betterads.org/about/)

"Leading international trade associations and companies involved in online
media ..."

~~~
cwyers
[https://www.betterads.org/members/](https://www.betterads.org/members/)

~~~
hackuser
Thanks; I don't know how I missed that.

Google is a member, FWIW, among very many.

------
guelo
Wow that seems like playing with fire for Google. Maybe they figure that
Trump's lax antitrust enforcement will give them free rein to screw with
competitors for the next 4-8 years.

~~~
umanwizard
What law does this violate?

~~~
kobeya
Antitrust laws. What happens when Google allows its own ads while blocking
Facebook's?

------
thr0waway1239
While the notion that Google is going to "do something about the ad problem"
is completely laughable, it would turn out to be a great thing if they just
blocked all ads from Facebook as a starting point. This would start some kind
of tit for tat race which will spiral out of control for both companies until
it ends up in MAD.

Once both companies destroy each other, we can pick up the pieces left over
and start to build a nicer web free of these two privacy plagues.

~~~
erezsh
Nice dream

------
axtscz
My guess is that Google ads would be whitelisted?

~~~
lucasmullens
They're following a standard:
[https://www.betterads.org/standards/](https://www.betterads.org/standards/)

Seems like a safe bet they wouldn't serve ads that would get blocked.

~~~
whyleyc
Except they don't follow that standard:

[http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-
google-...](http://www.groundup.org.za/article/why-were-dropping-google-ads/)

~~~
mpeg
Seems like you haven't read the better ad coalition standard, because it
doesn't say anything about creative content – it's just about formats.

And, honestly, that site is basically a south african blog; as much as I love
picking a fight when it's due, I don't think Google is to blame here, but the
advertisers targeting their core demographics.

------
return0
It's scary to watch how google manipulates the web to make it "google's web".
At first they incentivized everyone to offer specific types of content, then
they gradually made monetizing more difficult, and now they are actively going
to try to remove the competition. They should be working on improving their ad
delivery system instead.

~~~
erikb
It becomes "less" scary if you remember that many people already think that
"web" means "Facebook+Instagram app on iPhone".

~~~
return0
google is still the most visited site though, and you always end up on the web
with it.

------
etruong42
"Advertising company will block ads"?

or is it

"Advertising company will block ads (obviously except its own)"? "Content
providers - use Google's ad network if you want to make sure you get ad
revenue from Chrome!"

Will Google try to remain "fair"? Does the profit-maximizing moves align with
"fairness"?

~~~
abraves10001
I am not sure profit-maximization is ever primarily concerned with fairness.
Google is probably not the exception to this. However, like many things Google
this is something that will improve user experience (no more shitty, malware
infested ads, by default) and undercut their competitors. So, most of their
users aren't really going to be up in arms.

------
ww520
This is a bad idea. Unless Google allows the ad-blocker to block Google's ads
as well as others, it will be viewed as anti-competitive, antitrust.

------
code4tee
So I'm guessing "stripping adds that provide a bad experience for users" is
just code for "stripping adds not generating revenue for Google." A lot of
other neutral add blockers block Google and hence Google needs to convince
users to just let Google be their add filter.

It's a risky move by Google and one made likely more out of need for
themselves than need for their users.

For all the wonders of Google it's still very much a one trick pony from a
business standpoint. Anything that threatens their ad revenue is a very real
threat to their business health. All the fun "side businesses" while very cool
aren't exactly paying the bills.

------
microdrum
Will the feature block paid placements in search results, too? I think most
English speakers would consider these to be, erm, advertisements.

------
erikb
Yeah, The Ad Company of the twentyfirst century makes an adblocker. I think
I'd just deactivate it on day one and use an adblock plugin instead.

------
JohnJamesRambo
This would be fantastic. I finally installed Adblock Plus and I feel bad about
it, but I had had enough. I couldn't even see content on legitimate webpages
anymore through all the pop up ads and auto start videos. I don't mind normal
ads but it was getting ridiculous. The arms race had tipped too far to the ad
providers. I just want to block the ridiculous, which is what this sounds like
it would do.

------
harwoodleon
Google have totally missed the point here. Ad blocking is a reaction to
advertising, not good ads or bad ads. People install ad blockers, not ad
filters.

Advertising is dead in its current state. The first banner ad had a success
rate of 95%, compare that with today's metrics of less than 1% and you see the
issue.

Google is trying to do something to please shareholders, but ultimately this
strategy will fail.

------
jhatax
How many prognosticators among us think that Google will end up buying one of
the big ad-blocking companies out there? If acquired, this would be a coup for
Wladimir Palant and folks like him. Currently, Adblock Plus allows us to
uncheck the "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" option. If Google were to
acquire said company (or similar offering), this ability to disallow non-
intrusive advertising will be either hidden or removed entirely. If Google's
properties are the only ones "allowed" through the filter, that's another case
of monopoly power. Time will tell.

There is a silver lining for users here. If Google does go down this route,
Firefox and Edge will eventually follow suit. This somewhat concerted action
against intrusive ads will put a lot of pressure on ad agencies and content
providers, which could be the impetus they need to rethink their ad delivery
strategy to be more user-friendly.

------
JustSomeNobody
This isn't a Google coming to Jesus moment and realizing ads are bad. No, this
is getting out in front of the ad-blocking movement and proactively saving
their business model.

Google has every incentive to make advertising on the web palatable for most
everyone. If that means blocking some ads, then they need to do that.

------
aanm1988
How is it not a massive legal problem to have an ad company supplying the ad
blocker, and deciding what gets blocked?

~~~
refulgentis
The whole "relying on an open standards organization" bit.

~~~
kesor
I call bullshit.

------
Analemma_
Google has to know this is going to invite a wave of antitrust investigations.
I guess they think they can win?

------
theprop
While video ads with sound on and popups are pretty irritating, I think
interstitial ads with a timer are more in the grey area. I mostly use the Epic
Privacy Browser which already by default blocks all ads.

------
israrkhan
I wonder how this will impact their competitors (Facebook?). I assume these
features will be opt-in instead of enabled-by-default. it could be pretty
catastrophic if it is enabled by default. For an optin feature, it is not much
different from today, where a user can install adblocker extension. Very few
consumers opt to do so.

A while ago, Apple added ad blocking features to iOS 9, however users had to
explicitly enable them by installing an adblocker apps. I have not seen
significant impact by this move (G and FB are still growing).

~~~
mpeg
Facebook runs the tightest ship when it comes to ad formats. They don't allow
rich media ads at all either, so malvertising is almost non-existent on
Facebook.

They wouldn't be impacted by this at all, in my opinion who this hurts most is
publishers.

------
Animats
Then watch Google start blocking add-ons that block ads Google likes.

------
askvictor
I can only hope they are also developing a micropayment system to allow easy
payment for web content. This shouldn't be too hard - they have a billing
system (Google Play) already

~~~
mpeg
They have a system to allow easy payment for web content: Google ads.

~~~
askvictor
So... Marry Google Ads and Google Play to allow consumers to pay directly for
content without the ads?

------
kesor
What about the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)?

According to wikipedia they have criticized Microsoft for enabling Do Not
Track by default in Internet Explorer 10.

They also went against Mozilla for planning to turn on blocking of 3rd party
HTTP cookies in Firefox.

They even blocked AdBlock to attend an event of theirs.

So I am sure they will just LOVE that Google is making all of its competitors
dance to the IAB's tune. I wonder who is pulling the strings behind IAB when
Google goes and does something like this.

------
therealmarv
Finally. The mobile web is literally broken without adblocker on Android. In
the meantime the Adguard (Fake VPN, non root) filter + Chrome does a good job
for now.

------
Pica_soO
Sometimes just being able to do a thing, distorts the whole playing field.
Actually, just having this red button, will make google adds-business
untouchable for any serious competition. One nuke atop a rocket makes your
country s borders safer then any tank army ever could. And this is what this
is. A nuke, who even by just lying there in the ground, doing near nothing,
fortifies the walls of this empire.

------
Pxtl
It's too late. After my 9-year-old son's start-page got taken over by a
malicious ad, I set up uBlock. I was fighting long and hard to avoid
adblocking because I really did think it was wrong to view the web without the
ads that support it... but the industry has utterly failed to keep their
houses clean.

Whatever "polite" implementation Google implements in Chrome won't be enough
anymore.

~~~
always_good
I'm visiting my parents for Easter and was driven to installed uBlock Origin
on my dad's laptop because of Google's own Adsense ads.

He was on this website: [http://www.beverlybees.com/install-package-bees-
langstroth-h...](http://www.beverlybees.com/install-package-bees-langstroth-
hive/) and the first ad said "Click here to download the video player
extension" which got him to install a browser extension.

When I asked him why, he said "well, I'm trying to watch this tutorial video
and it said I needed an extension". It was just an unrelated ad. Adsense
must've picked up the "install" keyword on the page and started showing
"download" ads.

I told him it was an ad and he went back to the page, falling for the 2nd mid-
article ad further down which was a large play/download button. The ads made
him think he was looking for a video even though there is no video in the blog
post tutorial.

Watching my dad get fooled like this so helplessly really nauseated me, and
it's Google's own ads. How many ad clicks are from people thinking it's part
of the content?

I installed uBlock Origin immediately.

~~~
harwoodleon
Click bait ads that are made to mimic UX / UI are as close to malware as you
can get and often result in malware installs. Good on you for protecting your
dad.

------
damandloi
Chrome has already won the war of browsers however the new ones (Brave,
Vivaldi, UC) are jostling their way with inbuilt ad blockers.

Now, it might seem that Google wants to maintain an edge over these with the
new ad-blocking feature but one can tell that it will only block ads outside
Google network.

The way I see it as a bigger bet on cannibalizing itself because if Google
does not then somebody else will.

------
afarrell
I wish google would give me the option to describe what ads not to show me and
would only block those ads.

Then again, I wish Gmail could see that 60% of my email traffic is with one
other person and stop showing me ads for dating sites. And I wish that Amazon
ads would be for goods complimentary to the things I've bought rather than ads
for the items I've already bought.

------
perseusprime11
Before everybody gets excited, please read the fine print. They are working
with the Coalition for Better Ads and industry trades to support the Better
Ads Standards. If anyone is interested, here is the standard:
[https://www.betterads.org/standards/](https://www.betterads.org/standards/)

------
a_imho
When content blocking becomes first class citizen on all major browsers you
can't go back. Offering a sub-par browsing experience which forces people to
look at your ads is a surefire way to drive users to competitors.

Unless you have some lobbying ace up your sleeve to force 'acceptable ads' as
a standard to implement.

------
adambard
Note that this is built-in in Opera, which is basically a skin over Chromium
at this point. I definitely recommend it.

~~~
epmaybe
How is opera like chromium at this point? I've been using safari mostly, so
I've not kept up with browsers and development.

~~~
aqzman
I'm not the parent poster, but I believe the parent was referencing the fact
that Opera now uses the same rendering engine as Chrome/Chromium.

I haven't used Opera since they changed rendering engines, so I can't comment
beyond that.

------
gerdesj
Judging by the comments before this one, very few actually read the article -
soooo /.

My take: Ad wrangler attempts to quash competition by leveraging it's dominant
browser share.

How on earth does an ad slinger take the moral high ground wrt ad
intrusiveness or whatever is currently considered naughty by targets of ads?

------
no_gravity
This will be pretty interesting.

The web has been in a downward spiral for years: Fewer and fewer users browse
the web without an adblocker. Which leads Publishers to bombard them with more
and more ads. Which leads more users to use adblockers.

Blocking annoying ads for all users by default could break this vicious
circle.

------
microdrum
Serious question: I see that they are (sort of) adhering to (some) standard of
"ad acceptability."

Why are ads that consume a few too many CPU cycles more morally repugnant than
ads that nearly invisibly manipulate a consumer's search results with
undermining, misdirecting, or hortatory messaging?

~~~
harwoodleon
Because they gave to be seen to do something. Google have never really cared
how dirty or malicious it's ad inventory is.

------
ihsw2
This is interesting -- it leads to another eventuality where, instead of
blocking ads, Google replaces "bad ads" with "good ads" and provides revenue
to website owners that suffer from lost revenue as a result of ad-blocking.

------
Can_Not
If Google can block "bad ads", like malware and the ones that trigger
alert/confirm in rapidly generated iframes, I imagine adblock uasage could
decline growth. I'll always use ublock origin and privacy badger though.

------
rhino369
If google does this then Firefox should ad block google ads. What's good for
the goose.

------
nkkollaw
Seems like a great move for Google. Block all ads except theirs (and, most
people won't install another ad blocker if there is one built-in), so that
publishers will be forced to use Google ads if they want to target customers.

------
grigjd3
I like this move. I don't mind ads to support webpages I enjoy but I do want
to 've rid of the really annoying ads. I also don't get why advertisers do
that. If I am annoyed by an ad, I'm not going to buy.

------
stephenr
I've barely read/skimmed a few dozen of the comments here and its clear most
people didn't even read the article.

The primary goal for this _possible_ feature is to block "bad" ads, as deemed
by the ad industry.

------
ebbv
Considering Google's main business is selling ads I'm guessing they are only
going to block ads from competitors. Who will then have very solid ground for
a lawsuit for anti-competitive behavior. This seems like a bad idea.

------
skyisblue
It will be interesting to see if they block ads that are served through
Doubleclick for Publishers, a Google owned ad server.

Publishers that use DFP will be paying Google to serve ads that will
ultimately be blocked by a Google owned browser.

------
gcb0
Offending ads = non-google ads.

------
scanr
I'd be surprised if they block tracking which is the other half of what ad
blockers do and arguably the half that I think is more important.

It would be neat if they checked your DNT setting and then blocked tracking
based on that.

------
frik
We need less terrible ads. Let's go back to static picture-based banner ads.
The picture-link tracks the ad-clicks, simply, reliable and non bloated third
party JS needed.

So where are the ad networks that offer such ad-type?

------
madshiva
"Alphabet Inc.'s Google is planning to introduce an ad-blocking feature in the
mobile and desktop versions of its popular Chrome web browser, according to
people's familiar with the company's plans."

Yeah like every journalist do not give your source, make false article, try to
say what will be the future and fail to do it. This site have BIG annoying ad
at start. F __* this site. (Downvote me it 's free) this is not a value added
article, it only try to bias make view and try to pretend they know what will
happen, like we all know, journalist don't know anything they are just
follower and they need to start to give info that matter, that are true of
today, not of the future, without any added value.

------
sssilver
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?

------
dirtbox
It makes sense to do this on the mobile browser, trying to get around the net
can be horrific on a phone, not to mention the data useage. Ublock and so on
already have the desktop sewn up.

------
jug
But letting through their own ads because Google by pure coincidence judges
Google's ads to be OK, I guess? I don't like Google's interests guiding their
web platform (it's not just a web browser anymore), and this is icing on the
cake to me. Thankfully there are community ran alternatives on par with the
latest web standards and competing with these corporate web platforms, or else
our web would risk being truly lost.

With that said, how in the heavens or hells will Google be able to defend this
move from competing ad agencies while letting through their own ads? This
cannot be the first we'll hear of this if it actually happens.

------
shirleeinffld
Pretty interesting; I just today found it and added the extension to my Chrome
and it works fine. Still have Adblock in Safari, Bing and Firefox.

------
arielm
The concept of an ads company blocking "some" ads that _it_ decides aren't
good for users sounds a bit like google blocking its competitors, doesn't it?

------
coding123
I really want to know if others do this. I don't click on ANY ads, except
chumbox ads. Yes I'm admitting it - I want to know what those stars look like
now!!!!!

------
claroscuro
If you go to a restaurant and order a salad, you're not obligated to eat the
olives, and you have the right to take them off your plate.

Likewise, you have the right to bring an intermediary who looks at your salad
and hides all the olives for you.

If your intermediary happens to work for Green Olive Co. and he hides the
black olives but not the green ones, you have the right to switch to another
intermediary. Or get another intermediary who checks the plate and hides the
rest of the olives. Or do whatever you want, because you're not obligated to
consume any part of the salad that you don't want to.

~~~
sixstringtheory
Sure, but in your example, you've paid for the salad. The whole reason
(presumably) that advertising has gotten in the state it's in is that nobody
wants to pay for things, but it costs money to keep the lights on.

Full disclaimer: I use things for free day in and day out. I try to pay for
things that I find value in as my budget allows. I find many ads annoying.

~~~
claroscuro
Yeah, I see how my analogy fails now.

I still don't think there is a moral right or wrong with AdBlockers. Web sites
are text--how you choose to render them is (or should be) up to you, in my
opinion.

------
AceJohnny2
I wonder if this is the replacement for Google Contributor that they've
alluding to for a while. I'm sure u/Filligree can't comment... :)

------
politician
This will put them in a position to avoid or bypass hosts file blocking by
being able to reroute ads through alternate hosts on the fly.

Hmm, maybe I should patent that idea.

------
padmabushan
ppl at google are scared of FB's resurgent growth. now they are leveraging on
advantages they already have. if FB reacts with introducing plugins for
blocking ads completely (on desktop and mobile), It would ensure total
annihilation of ad industry. that is the a step fb can take now to force
google to make truce and backoff their adblocking features.

------
handsomechad
Will this potentially be able to disable tracking cookies from the likes of
Facebook and others who follow you around the internet?

------
erickhill
My god, to get quality journalism it would be so strange if the death of
online ads brought some semblance of Print back again.

------
wybiral
In general I like Google but a transparent move like this makes me consider
finally installing a third party ad-blocker instead.

------
heliophobicdude
So Google will be blocking competitor ads? Will they block their's too?

How does this bode for anti-trust protections?

------
dorianm
> According to those standards, ad formats such as pop-ups, auto-playing video
> ads with sound and “prestitial” ads with countdown timers are deemed to be
> “beneath a threshold of consumer acceptability.”

Seems reasonable considering Chromium goal:

> Chromium is an open-source browser project that aims to build a safer,
> faster, and more stable way for all Internet users to experience the web.

[https://www.chromium.org/Home](https://www.chromium.org/Home)

------
discordance
Is this an indication that Google isn't able to control 'bad' content ingested
up stream in their ad network?

------
jasonkostempski
I like the idea but only because FF will likey copy them without the conflict
of interest.

------
shmerl
It's probably a way to counter more aggressive ad blocking, since it will
allow some ads, and especially tracking.

------
sengork
That's practically one way to speed up browsing performance without changing
the underlying technology itself.

------
shirleeinffld
I just added to my extensions in Chrome and still have Adblocker in Safari,
Bing and FireFox

------
shirleeinffld
I just added to my extensions in Chrome and still have Adblocker in Safari,
Bing and FireFox

------
onmobiletemp
Some people dont like this. May i suggest firefox? Not fast enough for you?
You could always contribute.

------
te_chris
This makes microsoft look like saints.

------
tim333
I guess it makes sense for them as they can block annoying ads but leave
Google ads up there.

------
sintaxi
Yet another power grab from Google.

------
ganfortran
Well this is going to be a tool for Google to tame unscrupulous advertisers.
Good and Bad.

------
shredfg
They basically going to track the websites you visit and sell the data to get
revenue.

------
YesThisIsJay
_Pull major ads from youtube_ Google: "Fine! no one can have ads!"

------
misa_misa
What about the pop-up blocker? Doesn't that block most of the pop-up ads?

------
yakult
I wonder if Google will use this feature to accidentally-on-purpose step on
other adblocking extensions' toes, tech wise. Will running uBlock on top of it
hurt performance like running two antiviruses?

All of a sudden, Mozilla's decision to move towards Chrome's extension model
looks suspicious.

------
vorticalbox
Opera already does this already and includes an unlimited VPN for free.

------
amelius
Is this visual ad-blocking only?

Or are they also going to block user-tracking?

Just wondering.

------
TACIXAT
Anti-competitive / monopoly lawsuit in 3... 2... 1...

------
johnnydoebk
If you can't fight it, join it. Then lead it.

------
imazurenko
Есть небольшая разница между удалением рекламы и фильтрацией всей рекламы
кроме своей. Теперь нужно будет ставить дополнительный ублок, поверх штатного.
Как всё это будет работать - медленно и ломать вёрстку.

------
intrasight
The sentence parse, but beyond that it makes no sense.

------
Tomis02
Vivaldi already has an integrated ad-blocker.

------
mnw21cam
Usability alert: _Really_ faint text.

------
visarga
Good! I hope it blocks YouTube ads as well.

------
toplulz
probably google trying to destroy the competition. maybe block other ad
networks but not theirs.

------
idclip
Imitation is zhe best form of flattery.

------
manmal
That sounds like an anti trust case in the making.

------
mysticlabs
Trojan horse.

------
CodeWriter23
Google, meet The Sherman Act.

------
sbt
LOL

------
phoneyphone
Paywall removed: [http://outline.com/f35FY6](http://outline.com/f35FY6)

------
killjoywashere
Why didn't WSJ block access to this article?

