Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

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.



> 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.


> 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


> 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.


Well, I was just talking for myself. For instance, ad tracking personally doesn't bother me. What bothers me is intrusive ads that interrupt my normal browsing experience.


Until there are better integrated controls for deciding which arbitrary code blobs run on your computer, a large majority of people using adblockers will continue to do so despite Google's efforts.


I question whether a "large majority" of people using adblockers are aware they are doing anything other than blocking ads. The HN crowd tends to overestimate the tech-savviness of the general population when it comes to this stuff.


OP said "large majority of people using adblockers", not that a large majority were already using them.


So did I? I'm not sure what your point is. My post was framed around the current users of adblockers.


I understand what you were saying, but I made the (unfounded) assumption that most of the general ad-blocker population were turned onto it by someone they trust who is more computer-savvy, and those people will generally continue to recommend ad-blockers to their less-savvy friends as long as good reasons still exist.


Yes, but often I will temporarily lift the block to load the page (just a few mins ago I was on AWS announcement page, I couldn’t play a video unless I reload the page without content blocker. Not only do we have a tracking epidemic, we have external js issue. I have to either whitelist fonts.google.com and some other js libraries, or else explicitly reload page without blocker whenever I see a broken website... this security-privacy consciousness i is a good trade-off, but can we, as developers, do something?


Have you given uMatrix a try?


uMatrix on Firefox 57+ is completely broken for me, no frames are allowed even if the extension is soft disabled.

I'm kind of at my wits end... it's severely degrading my experience. Thinking of just disabling it for now and just relying on uBO




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: