How is it pro-consumer? Ad blocking is mainstream so Google wants people to consider this new built in "ad blocker" to be good enough, then they won't install one that blocks Google ads.

> It seems to me that it could be considered to be monopoly abuse and it also seems to be pro-consumer.

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!

> 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".

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.

Not such a strange combination in my view. As i see it, Google's customers are (for a large part) advertisers, and their product is the ability to get ads in front of people (and to get people to click on them). In the economical sense you could even argue that Google users are 'suppliers' (of eyeballs and clicks)

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.

I think you are missing the point. In my opinion it's a valid concern that this policy could be perceived as Google effectively pushing advertisers onto AdWords over other competing platforms

Forgive me another probably dumb question, but I don't mean to be obtuse or sarcastic at all, this is straight up:

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?