
We plan to have Chrome hide ads that do not comply with the Better Ads Standards - heinrich5991
https://blog.google/topics/journalism-news/building-better-web-everyone/
======
Veratyr
I really don't see this going down well.

The ad networks that aren't Google aren't going to be happy. They may admit
that this could reduce the use of full ad blockers but they're going to loathe
that they had no say. Plus, these experiences were shitty for the user but
they must have worked.

From a publisher point of view, on the one hand, this is likely to bring
reduced revenue from the folks who don't use ad blockers, that will be bad for
the publishers. On the other hand, there's the hope that users will stop
installing ad blockers and revenue should finally stabilise somewhat. Like the
ad networks, I think many publishers will be upset about not having a choice.

And finally, from a user perspective, this doesn't go far enough. Many users
will install ad blockers to get rid of the ads on YouTube alone and there are
a ton of other unacceptable ad formats that the "Better Ads Standards" don't
cover (like animated ads, small sticky ads, ads that look like download
buttons).

It seems to me like Google's desperately trying to plug the leak on a sinking
boat with a straw. It might mitigate things for a while but it won't do
anything to solve the actual problem.

~~~
ncallaway
> but they're going to loathe that they had no say.

They had a say. They could have responded to the race to the bottom state of
ad display tech. They could have recognized that they were in a tragedy of the
commons and formed a coalition for better ads.

They didn't. They continued the race to the bottom.

Each day they continued to push awful ads that harmed the user they were
voicing their opinion.

I agree with the rest of your comments, though...

~~~
zyxzkz
I guess we'll find out if Internet content disappears because of a lack of
"Gotcha!" advertising.

My guess is that the Internet will be just fine.

~~~
duncan_bayne
Especially the non Web bits.

------
tmh79
IMO, this is begging for an anti-trust lawsuit. Google, the largest advertiser
on the web, building web browsers that block other networks ads. I believe
they're going through with it now partially because they don't expect an
active anti-trust presence from the trump admin.

~~~
swyman
The post says they'd block ads from their own network that violate the
standard as well

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Very simply, Google can ensure its own network never violates it's own rules.
But other ad companies don't get to set those rules.

~~~
kbenson
> But other ad companies don't get to set those rules.

Strictly, neither does Google, as long as they are following the industry
group's standard. Sure, Google is a member of that group and may be able to
_influence_ the standard, but so are a lot of other companies, from Facebook
to the Washington Post. I doubt any one company can run away with the standard
without the others having a say, or at least making a big stink.

------
hamstercat
The biggest ad company in the world gets to decide what is and isn't
acceptable for an ad and actively censor it in the most popular browser in the
world? It's funny how some things turn out in the long run. I don't see the
situation getting better anytime soon. At this point, Chrome is the new IE6:
whatever they choose becomes standard because of their huge market share. Ho
well, at least it doesn't break all of my sites.

~~~
hyperbovine
Not IE: not bundled, not integrated, easily uninstalled. If people don't like
this move, there are a myriad of other browsers available for them to choose
from.

~~~
majormajor
IE was extremely replaceable.

Microsoft tried to tie it in as much as they could to leverage it being the
default and justify it being bundled, but the other vendors share at least an
equal share of the blame for _completely dropping the ball_.

How long did Netscape Navigator/Communicator 4 linger? How many wasted
resources were poured into things like the integrated page builder in
Communicator instead of features? Do you remember trying to use Netscape 6
Beta or whatever it was called before it became Mozilla?

IE 5 and 6 were initially just that much better. Heck, _IE was even the best
browser on Mac for a while circa 2000-2002ish_.

MS deserves a ton of extra blame for letting IE6 stagnate for five freaking
years until Phoenix->Firebird->Firefox got them off their asses again, but
don't blame them for having the better product when that initial war was won.

But, another key difference here is that Google has much more incentive to
keep improving Chrome and web standards even if they get more and more market
share, since their user-facing products are web properties, and Microsoft's
were not at the time.

~~~
jdietrich
I'm not sure that's entirely fair to Netscape and Mozilla. Early versions of
IE had absolutely horrible standards compliance, so there was a substantial
lock-in effect. Other browser developers had to expend considerable resources
to emulate IE's rendering, bug for bug. Even Microsoft had to bend over
backwards to maintain compatibility, via the once notorious quirks mode.

------
tabeth
I'd rather someone implement a tipping API where I can allocate money per
website per minute (or hour spent). When the money runs out, depending on the
configuration, the website can choose to serve me the page or ask me to reload
(on money for the website)

They get small amounts of micro transactions (I'm talking less than a cent)
and I change my behavior to stop going to useless sites.

everyone wins!

personally, I believe ads are a disease. if your website isn't worth paying a
penny to go to for an hour, then just shut down. a penny an hour could be very
sustainable for plenty of sites. take some random forum: 15,000 thousand users
per month, let's say the average user goes on for an hour a day, or 30 hours a
month. 450,000 cents is about 5 thousand a month. not too shabby. if your
website is that awesome up the price to 10 cents and increase your money an
order of magnitude.

the problem is the culture of "free", unfortunately.

~~~
yohui
Something like Google Contributor, which was just relaunched today?

[https://contributor.google.com](https://contributor.google.com)

Discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14467702](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14467702)

~~~
Sephr
That is "pay to block ads" and doesn't cover the OP's use case of "pay to use
this site" (afaik, I could be wrong). That use case is important for sites
that don't want to use ads in the first place.

~~~
lern_too_spel
This is pay the site to replace what they would get from an advertiser.

------
ilovetux
This is sad. When you follow the link they provide for the Better Ads Standard
there is a link to the coalition's privacy policy at the bottom of the page
which says clear as day that third parties such as social networks are
monitoring your use of the site to facilitate "interest based advertising".
That says it all, they want ads to be more palatable so them and their
accomplices can track your every digital move. This will make Creepy Google
tons of money by selling out their most precious resource while they continue
to build skynet.

Whatever happened to "Don't be evil"?

~~~
clock_tower
"Don't Be Evil" was basic PR: figure out what you're most hated for, and
loudly, repeatedly insist that you're the opposite of it. Delta promises
comfort and ease in coach, which should only remind you of how hellish that
experience can be; Google bragging that they weren't evil should've been an
instant red flag.

~~~
659087
The continuing repetition of this PR catch phrase by Google fans as "proof"
that Google is benevolent is mindblowing to me.

~~~
mirimir
Well, I've read that Google coded XKeyscore for the NSA. And in retrospect,
Shumeet Baluja's _The Silicon Jungle_ almost confirms it.

~~~
659087
I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was true, particularly given Google's
incredibly close relationship and revolving door with the government. I
haven't read The Silicon Jungle, but I might have to do that now.

~~~
mirimir
It's a great book.

"Shumeet Baluja, Ph.D., is currently a Senior Staff Research Scientist at
Google..."

[https://research.google.com/pubs/author35.html](https://research.google.com/pubs/author35.html)

------
patrickg_zill
Am I so very cynical, that I assume that Google Ads will be assumed by default
to comply with these standards? And that therefore, those using Google Ads to
advertise will have their ads shown 100% of the time, while the exact same ad
served on the same page, but via a different ad network, might not be shown?

~~~
Arnavion
FTA (emphasis mine):

>In dialogue with the Coalition and other industry groups, we plan to have
Chrome stop showing ads _(including those owned or served by Google)_ on
websites that are not compliant with the Better Ads Standards starting in
early 2018.

~~~
hayksaakian
They key here is not 'which ads' get shown, but rather which _websites_ will
be allowed to show any ads at all.

~~~
just2n
If this follows the trend of what happened to YouTube advertising (TV 2.0) in
that certain websites will be targeted for demonetization without any
transparency or consistency, this will open a giant hole for competitors to
eat one of Alphabet's core businesses. Perhaps leveraging this use of control
over Chrome to effectively cripple competing ad networks with perfectly
reasonable ads on websites that don't want to provide profit to Google will
open them to litigation as well.

This will be interesting.

~~~
hayksaakian
Google's Display network is only a small fraction of their advertising
revenue.

Search advertising revenue is #1 by far.

Google can make a lot of mistakes in every other vertical. As long as they
don't screw up search they can fail as much as they want.

------
tuna-piano
A few years ago, Chrome decided not to add a "mute tab" option, explaining,
"After much debate, we decided not to proceed with a tab mute control, as this
crosses a very important line: If we provide Chrome controls for content,
we’re implying that Chrome should take on a responsibility to police
content."[1]

It appears their opinion has changed. Of course, it's likely due to financial
reasons[2].

That said, Chrome has blocked pop-ups forever... and I think I agree with this
decision, as it will help both Google and content owners. I don't think most
people won't install ad blockers if ads aren't obnoxious.

[1][https://thenextweb.com/google/2014/02/11/google-explains-
won...](https://thenextweb.com/google/2014/02/11/google-explains-wont-add-
mute-tab-option-chrome-considers-tab-audio-api-extensions/)

[2][http://www.businessinsider.com/pagefair-2017-ad-blocking-
rep...](http://www.businessinsider.com/pagefair-2017-ad-blocking-
report-2017-1)

~~~
yohui
Mute tab seems to be enabled by default now, so they must have changed their
minds a while ago.

EDIT: Found an article: [https://venturebeat.com/2015/10/20/you-can-now-mute-
tabs-in-...](https://venturebeat.com/2015/10/20/you-can-now-mute-tabs-in-
chrome/)

~~~
MaulingMonkey
As far back as Sept. 2014 chrome://flags/#enable-tab-audio-muting was
available in dev builds. I think I've probably had it enabled for about as
long.

------
ams6110
Sorry Google, I'm going to block them all anyway. And if your browser won't
let me, I'll use one that will.

~~~
clock_tower
Firefox/SeaMonkey, NoScript, uBlock Origin. It's pretty cozy over here.

~~~
j_s
Curious to see mention of SeaMonkey! Do you have personal experience with it,
and if so how does it stack up?

Was checking to see how often it appears on HN and it seems to have shown up a
handful of times with the recent discussions of the browser wars, along with
another Firefox-derivative/alternative I've never heard of before: PaleMoon.

~~~
clock_tower
SeaMonkey's pretty good -- it's Firefox oriented towards developers. I almost
feel like it's a bit faster than Firefox proper, even though I'd expect it to
be slower from extra developer tools; regardless, it can run all the same
plugins, and it's a good choice of browser for software-related jobs.

------
danaliv
None of this solves the fundamental problem with ad-centered revenue models,
which is that advertising has driven down the quality of content by forcing
sites to optimize for cheap clicks. Even if you're blocking ads, you're still
being affected by them, because they're driving the strategies of the sites
you visit and defining the metrics by which they judge their own success.

Don't get me wrong; this is an improvement, and a welcome one in my opinion.
Pre-stitials in particular were never anything more than a slimy way to get
around pop-up blockers. But ultimately the internet needs a new way to make
money. I don't claim to know what that is, unfortunately, but I think the
problem is clear.

~~~
Mz
Tip jars. Support the content you value without having to deal with ads.

[http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/search?q=Tip+jar](http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/search?q=Tip+jar)

------
joosters
My parents don't realise that when they click on the top link of a google
search result, they are clicking on an ad. I'd guess that many many other
people don't realise this either.

That would seem to categorise these adverts as deceptive, right? So, when will
Google be blocking these adverts?

~~~
watertorock
I have seen many people - young and old - do the exact same thing, not knowing
they are ads.

------
RUG3Y
Eh, I'm using adblockers forever. There is zero content that I absolutely
can't live without. I miss the "old" days when folks were publishing sites for
the love of what they were doing.

~~~
Method-X
People still publish sites for the love of it. That never changed. Not every
site has ads.

------
git_rancher
This is just industry self regulation in the face of otherwise impending
"doom" from the ad blocking trend.

------
ProfessorLayton
This sounds great on the surface, but when one of the biggest tech companies
in the world becomes the arbiter of the internet, we all lose.

------
ipsum2
> But the reality is, it’s far too common that people encounter annoying,
> intrusive ads on the web--like the kind that blare music unexpectedly, or
> force you to wait 10 seconds before you can see the content on the page.

I can't help but point out the irony that sound-playing, (mostly) unskippable
ads precisely describes Youtube, before you can see the (video) content.

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
The sound of a YouTube ad doesn't come from an unexpected place.

------
redm
"The new Ad Experience Report helps publishers understand how the Better Ads
Standards apply to their own websites."

Only Google could put something that forces all websites to A) use this tool
and B) comply with this tool, or else, as a "helpful tool for publishers".

When you have a 70%+ market share (Chrome Desktop and Android browsers) you
leave websites with ads no choice but to do what you want, how you want, and
hope for the best.

If you've looked at the tool, you realize it's going to work just like
Mobility reporting and Safe Browsing. Google will tell you there's a problem
and take action. In this case, the action is to cut your revenue. I'm sure
there will be a hotline to call if it makes a mistake though.... (that's a
joke)

Shame on you Google.

------
deprave
Mark my words: This will be the basis for legitimizing out-of-band popups from
publishers on Chrome asking you to disable your non-Chrome ad blocker.

~~~
wmf
Way ahead of you: "With Funding Choices, now in beta, publishers can show a
customized message to visitors using an ad blocker, inviting them to either
enable ads on their site, or pay for a pass that removes all ads on that site
through the new Google Contributor."

------
bobajeff
I can't wait to see what Apple, Microsoft and Mozilla's response is going to
be.

~~~
jpmattia
Presumably: Blocking ads that are deceptively listed as being part of search
results.

------
troydavis
It's buried a bit, but the most noticeable change is arguably that Google is
productizing blocking ad blockers. From the release:

"As part of our efforts to maintain a sustainable web for everyone, we want to
help publishers with good ad experiences get paid for their work. With Funding
Choices, now in beta, publishers can show a customized message to visitors
using an ad blocker, inviting them to either enable ads on their site, or pay
for a pass that removes all ads on that site through the new Google
Contributor."

------
kbenson
_Compromise: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each
side making concessions._

If any one side were perfectly happy with this solution, it would probably
mean it's not a very good solution. Of course the ad networks don't want to
have to follow any standards. Of course the content producers that are making
good money with ads that may fall foul of this don't want anything to change
that might reduce their revenue. Of course users would rather get rid of all
ads. None of that is realistic or sustainable. If advertising doesn't get its
act together, ad blocking will increase even more over the large year-over-
year increases it's already seeing[1], and at some point content producers
will find they aren't making enough money anymore to sustain that advertising
model because nobody is seeing their ads, and it will all come crashing down.

Would another model rise up in its place? Sure. Would that be any comfort to
the people that ended up having to get a different job because what they were
doing was no longer sustainable and no new model can take over
instantaneously? Doubtful.

Whatever you want the eventual model to be, the only way forward that doesn't
strangle the market while it's happening includes everyone involved taking
responsibility for their part. _And this definitely includes the consumers._
Your "I can do whatever I want to bits delivered to me / I have no
responsibility to watch the advertising expected to fund the content I'm
consuming" arguments never really held up anyway, and they definitely don't if
the other side gets its act together.

Privacy concerns are still valid, but ad blockers never actually _fixed_ that,
they just added an extra level of complexity to the equation. Use facebook?
Guess what facebook probably knows about every site you've visited that has a
like button while your facebook session is still active. Your only hope is
legislation, and you'll be lucky not to get a raw deal out of that, and your
only hope of a good outcome there is awareness and activism. Acting like your
ad-blocker actually helps all that much is just sticking your head in the sand
when that's the next real fight for online rights.

1: [http://www.businessinsider.com/pagefair-2017-ad-blocking-
rep...](http://www.businessinsider.com/pagefair-2017-ad-blocking-
report-2017-1)

------
koolba
So Google picks what ads you see on non-Google sites? Zero conflict of
interest there...

------
pdimitar
This is an attempt by Google to funnel more ad revenue and try and kick out
competitors in one stroke.

It will only work partially.

As other commenters have said -- this doesn't go far enough though, which is
understandable, they won't pull the rug under their own feet.

And no, users won't start uninstalling adblockers with happy smiles.

I guess for the huge scale Google operates in there _will_ be slightly
increased revenue for a while though.

------
Lunatic666
I'm only using a blocker, because I don't want to be tracked and sucked dry of
any data. I wouldn't mind some ads on the pages I visit.

~~~
pmiller2
I don't think you can have ads without tracking these days.

------
mempko
False, there is no such thing as better ADs.

------
lovich
How does this not get government intervention when Microsoft got it for
bundling IE as the only broswer for Windows? This is like being the company in
charge of fuel efficiency for car manufacturers while also owning 50% in
aramco.

------
tux1968
This really gives legitimacy to all ad-blockers; although I guess that ship
has mostly sailed anyway. Still, you can't say it's inherently wrong if you
implement some version of it yourself.

------
yohui
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14463732](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14463732)

~~~
ilovetux
Despite the overwhelming negative reaction in that discussion thread, Google
decided to go ahead with it. What does that really say about Google and
friends?

~~~
quotemstr
It's almost as if Hacker News is some kind of unusual bubble that doesn't
reflect the opinions and viewpoints of the general public.

~~~
ilovetux
Good point, I do fall for the reinforcing echos of like-minded people. It's
good to be reminded once in a while, but I do still find Google's, Facebook's
and more recently Microsoft's business model really creepy.

------
nebabyte
Meh, I'd rather arbitrate my own filters, thanks. Will continue not using
Chrome :)

------
kjsingh
This smells like bad monopolistic and anti-competitive initiative!

------
sawmurai
Nice ... will still keep an independent adblocker :)

------
aanm1988
What's the response when a competitor (rightfully IMO) claims this is a
blatant abuse of googles position as the leading browser provider?

------
fapjacks
What they mean here is actually "We plan to have Chrome hide ads that do not
comply with Google's standards" and I challenge anyone to show that this isn't
Google trying to silo advertising even more than they already do.

------
anonemouse145
This is dumb. Even if I admit a lot of these ads annoy me.

Back in the day Google would just lower the ranking of sites with banner ads.
That sort of makes sense. They're a worse result, so show them lower. Fine. We
should still decide this with traffic, but hey we can debate that.

To give Google/Chrome broad authorization to block people from seeing content
that Google doesn't like scares the hell out of me, even if it's under a
thoughtful banner.

Random made up example- what if next time Google picks a consumer advocacy
group that says PayPal is a bad service, and blocks ads on sites that use
PayPal? (Google offers Wallet)

I would grant them blocking ads that activate Android vibration- I consider
that borderline malware. I grant pop-up ads, opening a new tab I didn't ask
for is also arguably malware. I do not grant them blocking a wide variety of
types of content just because marketers are abusing it. That's bad precedent.
Rank them down, warn the user, heck put a "click to play Flash" lock on it.
But don't take control away.

Google also hints at services that would let a website lock down when it
detects ad blocking and force people to pay or otherwise engage to get access
to the site. I think that's already one trojan horse. Google can stop you from
trying to generate revenue off users, oh by the way we sell a new system where
you can pay to get that back.

I don't like anything about this, even though I agree that screw those ads.

