
Google will turn on native ad-blocking in Chrome on February 15 - drukenemo
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/19/google-will-turn-on-native-ad-blocking-in-chrome-on-february-15/
======
fortythirteen
How is this not anti-competitive behavior?

If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their
operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their
browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the
same thing?!

~~~
paulmd
Because there are multiple competing products you can switch to, or even
multiple additional products (i.e. ublock/adblock) which you can add in
Google's own product if you disagree with their stance.

It's not anti-competitive just because you don't like it.

~~~
juliangoldsmith
Anti-competitive behavior isn't necessarily monopolistic.

Google is leveraging Chrome's dominant market position to (potentially) harm
their competitors in an unrelated market.

You were always able to install Firefox or Chrome on Windows, but Microsoft
was fined for using their dominant market position (Windows) to push a product
in an unrelated market (web browsers).

------
wst_
I still find it amusing that they consider auto-play video OK as long as it's
muted. Sound is the problem, but so is auto-playing itself.

~~~
Artlav
They are all probably too rich to understand the concept of paying for mobile
data.

~~~
dingo_bat
I pay 5$ for three months unlimited LTE data on my phone here in India. They
throttle me if I consume more than 1GB in a day. But that's enough for me to
not worry about auto playing videos. But I really hate the audio. My point is
that you don't have to be rich to not have to worry about mobile data now.

~~~
jhasse
In Germany you'll get 1GB _per month_ for 5$. And probably not LTE.

~~~
bjoli
Blame the government. They sold the 3g spectrum frequencies to the phone
companies at insane prices. The German consumers are still paying for it.

~~~
jhasse
I actually don't think it's such a bad thing. Just wanted to point that out ;)

------
Artlav
I bet it won't block all the damn "download our shitty app instead of using
the fully functional website we have" full screen popups...

~~~
9point6
Isn't there a Google PageRank penalty for sites that do that now?

~~~
deno
There’s a dedicated API now…

[https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/app-
install-b...](https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/app-install-
banners/#native_app_install_banners)

It uses some heuristics:

> Be visited by the user twice, over two separate days during the course of
> two weeks.

I think apps installed this way should be also limited to some subset of
permissions they can request[1]. Otherwise this is almost like a bookmarking
mechanism.

[1] They could still explicitly ask for more, on use.

~~~
earenndil
Google's own site doesn't do this! I haven't visited google sheets on my phone
in quite a while (ever?), but when I go to sheets.google.com, I get an ad for
the google sheets app, and it's in no way clear that it's possible to use a
web interface. Same for google docs.

------
thisisit
It seems the criteria for blocking is rather discretionary. Are they going to
block a site which has _annoying_ Google ads? Frankly this seems to be another
excuse to build a walled garden to try and serve their interests.

~~~
jicks
The criteria is not discretionary. They'll block ads that don't follow the
guidelines defined by the Coalition for Better Ads [0] (Google is a member,
but there is a lot of other members, like Facebook, ...). So yes, they'll
block a site which has non-conforming Google ads.

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

~~~
nailer
I understand this, and believe it's true, but: gmail mobile has a full page ad
asking you to download the app. I'll be surprised if Google block it.

~~~
scrollaway
There's a difference between a site willfully destroying UX on mobile versus
including a third party's paid content.

Reddit mobile also has a full page ad asking you to download the app. I also
doubt Google would block that. Nothing to do with it being "Google".

~~~
CaptSpify
I personally don't see a difference. They are putting a notice up that is
trying to entice me to "buy" something. Why does it matter if it's from a 3rd
party or not?

------
syphilis2
As someone who was already using ad block this might be bad for me. If
everyone starts using ad block, and if intrusive ads are more profitable than
the approved ads, then advertisers will be pressured to find better ways to
subvert ad block. The good times of ad block might be in the past, and the
arms race accelerating.

------
rdsubhas
Will it be using static whitelist files (and will they be updated separately,
or as part of the browser update)?

Because the last thing (in addition to non-competitive behavior and a host of
other things) is to send all browsing traffic/history to google services to
validate if its an ad or not.

~~~
user5994461
All the browser have lists of websites that are automatically updated
periodically in the background.

To give a non controversial example, there is a list of "phishing and malware
domains". It's been going on for a very long time.

~~~
kodablah
I don't think it's completely fair to compare "Safe Browsing Lists" to ad
blocking. While I agree and don't like that Google is a gatekeeper of those,
it's sparingly used in my experience. Lists like these would require much more
maintenance and oversight. I suppose you could say it is similar in how the
lists might be updated, which IIRC is via an "extension"-like updating
mechanism via crx update files.

------
gumby
"Intrusive"? I assume they mean visually or auditory. Presumably intrusive
tracking, web bugs and the like will be fair game.

~~~
jasonkostempski
Yeah, it's time to start calling proper ad-blockers, "tracking blockers". It
sounds more like something you need, like anti-virus, and also sounds like
something that's "fair" to use if you have moral concerns about ad blocking.

~~~
rypskar
I use ghostery to block tracking, no ad-blocker. But since almost all ads
track users almost all ads are blocked. If anyone want to show me ads they
will have to show ads without tracking that try to find which ads will be
least interesting for me

~~~
bionoid
I recently discovered that Ghostery was purchased by Cliqz [0], which is a
company partially owned by Mozilla. They offer a free privacy-oriented browser
"Cliqz" which is described on Wikipedia as:

"Cliqz plans to eventually monetize the software through a program known as
Cliqz Offers, which will deliver sponsored offers to users based on their
interests and browsing history. However, these recommendations will be
processed locally based on a remote repository of offers, with no personally
identifiable data sent to remote servers." [1]

I haven't looked further into it, but it makes me feel like I should
contribute to a browser project...

[0] [https://www.ghostery.com/blog/ghostery-news/ghostery-
acquire...](https://www.ghostery.com/blog/ghostery-news/ghostery-acquired-
cliqz/)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliqz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliqz)

------
ourmandave
Long as I can keep using uBlock Origin and disable theirs it's fine with me.

~~~
fortythirteen
Still doesn't make it ok, from an anti-competitive standpoint.

"As long as I can download Netscape, having IE pre-installed is fine with me."

~~~
user5994461
Having IE pre installed is a necessary. How do you use the internet with
nothing installed?

What's next? We're going to force shipping cars without wheels. It's unfair to
decide what brand people should use without their consent.

~~~
betterunix2
The EU forced Microsoft to give Windows users a choice of browsers:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu)

Having IE preinstalled was not necessary; OEMs could have (and some did)
preinstall other browsers. What happened was that Microsoft decided to base
unrelated parts of Windows on IE so that their browser would have to be
preinstalled (Windows would not function without it). There was top-level
direction on that decision and it was not actually motivated by a specific
technical need.

~~~
user5994461
OEM get paid to install software, they are not a receivable argument for what
should be in a reasonable default install.

~~~
betterunix2
Maybe so, but there is also the fact that a lot of third-party software for
Windows used IE simply because it was there, which obviously ate the market
share of other browsers.

------
evolighting
So, Your only ad choice will be Goolge! Since another ad provider (?) may be
"annoying or intrusive";

Yes I`m just kidding, But google is far too POWERFUL anyway.

~~~
jicks
No, they'll only block ads that don't follow the guidelines defined by the
Coalition for Better Ads [0] (Google is a member, but there is a lot of other
members, like Facebook, ...). Note that this may include ads provided by
Google.

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

~~~
jessaustin
It is either naive or cynical to insist that a giant unaccountable
organization will or won't do anything in particular with respect to its core
business.

------
circa
Will they make them go away with this one weird trick?

------
adangert
The best way for Google to solve this problem, is to block all ads by default
in chrome, remove ads on google.com, and charge users a yearly fee to click to
the next page on any search result. Thus you have users paying real money to
use google's full search feature. Everyone is happy.

------
chappi42
Correct title should read 'native ad-filtering'.

(remark directed towards techcrunch - blocking would e.g. be uBlock Origin)

------
l2dy
Source (Google): [https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/12/better-
ads](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/12/better-ads)

~~~
kodablah
This made things much clearer. Thanks. But I have a ton of questions:

* Where can I download the ad experience report?

* So if I replace the ad using a different approach (DOM path, attrs, domain, etc) every 29 days, this isn't going to block anything?

* Where is the code that does the blocking on Chromium so I can read it? Specifically, I want to see if it's client side or not.

Can anyone shed any light here?

------
tyingq
My favorite bit is the ban on interstitials with a countdown timer.

I hate those as much as anyone else, but....

Somehow the interstitials with countdown timers on videos, like YouTube, don't
count...that's allowed.

Are they any less annoying than a pop-up that blocks text content for a set
period of time? Both force an ad on you before viewing the actual content.

My worry is that this will shift many content providers from text to video.
The web will turn into broadcast TV.

------
tobyhinloopen
Thats a bold move I don’t approve... My browser should not filter content by
default by some rules defined by a company

------
mtgx
I wonder if this will be enabled on Chrome for mobile, too. Since Chrome
doesn't have extensions, and therefore ublock origin, on mobile, Google has
little incentive to enable it there. I assume they will enable it there, too,
but you never know.

~~~
Sylos
Presumably, their ad blocker will primarily block other ad networks' ads, so
then it would be a netgain for them to enable it on mobile, too.

------
boggio
Ok, next move is to remove 3rd party Adblocking software from the Chrome
Store. /s

~~~
Spivak
Hey, if they want to push users to Firefox I'm not going to complain.

------
jonbarker
I wonder if Google will allow ads.txt to specify how annoying the ads can be
[https://iabtechlab.com/ads-txt/](https://iabtechlab.com/ads-txt/)

------
krelian
This should be great on mobile. On mobile there are no extensions and there
are at least two news sites I frequent that abuse it by showing a full page
popup before every article.

~~~
Fnoord
Problem isn't browser on Android. You can install another like many others
already said (I use Firefox + uBlock). The problem is that apps use Webview to
embed. So you're going to need to use another option to block ads on Android
in general:

1) Use DNS66 as another user said. Doesn't require root. (Does make a local
VPN, so removes option to use a VPN.)

2) Use Pi-Hole on a Pi at home and make a VPN to it. Bonus: you get access to
your home network (if you config it as such) and are secure over open WiFi and
hostile 4G. Doesn't require root.

3) You can root your phone and use /etc/hosts or IPT

4) Firefox 58 will allow you to run tabs as "apps" which are pinned in the OS.
If that takes off, that's going to result in a massive dent in paid apps from
Google Play as well as ad revenue from Android.

As for this action by Google, its a charming move. Remember that time when
Google was just new, and was only text ads on Google search engine?

~~~
Spivak
Some apps might use a WebView but any app that's using custom tabs ('Chrome
tabs') can take advantage of the browser ad blocking. For Firefox all you have
to do is turn it on in Firefox and make it your default browser.

You can already do 4 with sites that support being a PWAs and it's pretty
good.

~~~
Fnoord
AFAIK most apps use WebView. I use Firefox as default browser (even disabled
Chrome, not using it), and still see ads (that is w/o any of the other methods
mentioned).

PWA was part of Firefox 58 AFAIK, so you either need Firefox Beta or wait till
January.

------
yeukhon
So does this prevent iframe hijack and pop-up types of annoying ads? They are
the kinds I really really want to stop seeing. Unfortunately uBlock can only
block so many.

~~~
Ajedi32
Chrome 64 already blocks those by default:
[https://blog.chromium.org/2017/11/expanding-user-
protections...](https://blog.chromium.org/2017/11/expanding-user-protections-
on-web.html)

------
ksk
They're going to block all the other ad blocking extensions from running on
Chrome. Or cripple chromes API so they can't exist. Its only a matter of time.

------
mezuzi
Many big channels show black screens with the sound on if you are using
adblockplus, but who cares about such channels?!

------
heptathorp
Now if only we had native-ad blocking.

------
fatwa
How will this work? Algorithm-based? Blacklist? Smells like useless cat and
mouse to me

~~~
_rpd
Ad blocking will always be an arms race. But even small imposed expenses on
advertisers seems to eliminate most ads.

