The move only is pro-consumer where it benefits Google's bottom line: Blocking competitors ads, using a standard that Google easily meets. It's similar to when countries block agricultural imports that don't meet a standard that is unique to their domestic industry, in the name of "safety".
For example, I don't expect Google to block ads that violate users' privacy by tracking them. But I hope they surprise me!
I never thought of this implementation but I imagine this is one of the few ways Google can bundle in ad blocking in Chrome. As long as third party blockers (specifically uBlock Origin https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode for me) I don't mind. I go back and forth to using Mozilla Firefox mostly because I use it on Android but I appreciate all that Google has done to move the web forward.
Monopoly abuse can of course impact both suppliers as well as customers, but in this case it's probably more likely to only impact advertisers.
- As individuals we can switch to other search engines and browsers, so it's difficult to abuse a monopoly that way.
- However, as long as we keep using Google, advertisers might have no other option to get a reach this valuable. So Google could possibly exploit its position towards advertisers. (e.g. Favor its own ads over other ad networks).
Still looks like a net win for end users.
Even working on projects where we wanted to see online adverts, all ad networks were null routed at our border. We saw too much variety of risks in letting adverts traverse the lan.
I'm (very) out of touch, but is it expected to view pages complete with advertising - unadulterated - in modern corporate setting?
If so, is there good reason for this? Or am I missing relevant firewall tech?
And what would be one reasonable response that a company reliant on ads for income who also happens to produce a browser used by a huge number of users look like when they realize this existential threat exists? Well, one reasonable response would be exactly this, a "kill the misbehaving ones" addition to that browser in hopes of heading off the threat before it becomes a true, company killing, result.
Only time will tell if this change in mindset on their part actually results in heading off the eventual outcome.
There are several angles to be wary of. Locking out competitors, replacing competitor ads with their own, forcing sites to migrate to, or back to, Google ad networks, etc.
I agree, they need to thread carefully, but things need to change, and that change needs to come from two angles: publishers whoring out their users and ad networks not taking responsibility for what they let on their networks.
Really? I've never used Google ads, so for all I know you're right, but why would none of the ~600 comments in the previous discussion [1] mention that?
I'm on the Adx platform, which was invite only a few years back. It has some differences to Adsense, but I believe ad review and transparency with what creatives are displayed is part of both cores.
If I were to guess, there were 600 people in the thread who were not actually publishers using Google ads.
They've also hosted fake download ads for e.g. Skype.
Adsense has its more than fair share of low quality ads. Of course, you can't compare it to popups/sound-ads etc. but compared to the past, it's certainly way lower. (Keep in mind the experience varies wildly based on your profile. Geo etc.)
I think this is what he meant by conflict of interest
Turns out it was coming from a network called Sovrn, which is ironically a member of betterads.org and apparently "recently added an extra layer of protection from malware and redirects, all of [their] creatives are pre-scanned before they are served."
It's a good start, but consumers deserve a better ad experience for approved formats too.
If something else on the page doesn't, presumably Chrome will block Google's ads too.
YouTube doesn’t have auto-playing video ads with sound?
YouTube doesn’t have countdown based ads blocking the content?
Google.com always has less than 3 ads?