The new model for content blockers in Safari is faster and a lot more memory efficient because they're compiled into byte code. Content blockers are also more secure and better for privacy because they have no knowledge of the browsing that users are doing. The content-blocking rules are only provided by third parties.
Google is probably doing this because it makes their browser faster—not because of some wild conspiracy to show more advertisements.
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Ge...
FIFY.
I have no idea why the belief that "what's good for Google is good for the internet" persists - those days are long past. Google is best understood as a huge surveillance operation with bait services attached.
The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. The ad blocker-makers are tiny, fragmented and unfortunately muddled with some crappy products that sell whitelist entries; this is a good time for Google to try to knife them, before a market leader emerges.
And please do refrain from fixing my posts for me, I am perfectly capable of expressing my opinions without your assistance.
This presumes complete congruence between these two sets, which is precisely what is being criticized above.
How exactly is:
" The obvious reason for them to push their own ad blocker seems most likely; it is to suck the oxygen out of the space by exploiting their privileged position as a browser maker to destroy 3rd parties that can block their ads. "
If true, good for 'the internet' in general, rather than being good for Google primarily with some related good and harm for 'the internet' ?
Are Google product listings ads? Google flight results? Featured destinations?
If you put ads on page e.g. Amazon product that relates to your content with affiliate link, that's fair and acceptable and appreciated.
If you put an ad that your audience may be interested in, unrelated to your content e.g. content creator reviewing restaurants also advertises for gyms in my area. It is fair and tolerated.
If you outsource what ad gets shown to me, leaving me at mercy of brokers and exchanges who target me with ads based on my entire profile, ads not just related to content that I requested, but ads created based on what the ad broker/exchange know about me personally. Seeing ads for athletes foot remedy that I searched for last week, when I am looking at camera reviews is not acceptable and makes me feel totally ethical when I use ad-blockers. You, the content host, is basically luring me in with promise of content and pulling bait and switch by bombarding ads on me, things like splitting content into bite size pieces across 20 pages to convert single request into 20 impressions is waste of my time, I don't have to deal with it and will use ad-blockers without any guilt on such sites.
People have trained their eyes to not register the ads, e.g. mobile ads that scroll over the page. This is similar to browsing a print magazine and not registering ads at all consciously.
The advertisers declared war on people, looking at them as crop to be harvested. Well, the people have an opinion about this and I am totally fine with the battle raging on.
What makes an ad an ad has nothing to do with potential-viewer intent. Lack of viewer intent is what makes it an _unwanted_ ad.
I happen to have a certain ad framed and on my wall at home. I spent money on the ad, and more money to frame it. Pretty sure that meets the definition of 'request'.
Guess what? It is still an ad.
My Take: Redefine what ad means for web browsing, e.g. any information coming from a third party like iframes. All other types of information, paid or not paid, is part of the web page and not worth blocking.
If a new tech comes along that destroys your business, you should invest in that tech or you risk becoming blockbuster while Netflix rises. If Blockbuster had taken its opportunity to buy netflix or build a competitor it would still be in business today.
Same thing with all those oil companies becoming energy companies. Solar and wind are displacing coal and oil, and all the big energy companies are in on it. They don't look at risk of going under soon.
Except when it comes to chat/text communication. In that case they run around like chickens with their heads cut off.
Google rarely makes unilateral decisions from the top down to product teams. They mostly operate independently.
Apart from shutting them down.
It's been assigned to some unknown person since 2015.
Though I'm not so sure the reason for it's delay in coming to Android isn't technical rather than organizational.
Brave for Android is based off of Chromium and it didn't have extensions either.
It sounds like the way extension APIs were initially implemented didn't lend itself to a Android port.
"We never had the Android version compiling with extension support in the first place - in our early development internally, we hacked/commented/disabled random parts of extension code just to get the binary to compile, and we later tidied this up to disable extensions in a neater way to save binary size. So, you are basically talking about actually implementing extension support for android from scratch, including adding every thing that extensions require but aren't currently implemented for Android. This isn't likely to be especially easy. " - https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/m/#!topic/chr...
Though I don't understand why since Firefox mobile extensions are based off a similarly designed system (Jetpack) to Chromes.
It seems that if nothing else they could create a new API for extensions on Android.
Moreover, Mozilla is currently actually switching to an extended version of Chrome's extension API (which Mozilla calls "WebExtensions"). They had no problem implementing that on Android Firefox. Obviously, yes, there are APIs that just don't make sense on a mobile browser, but you have a well-defined API, so just blacklist extensions that require these APIs.
The single best improvement I've made to my mobile browsing experience in years wasn't getting a new faster phone, it was installing Brave and disabling javascript.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/toggle-javasc...
Brave is a Chrome fork so for those of us who prefer Chrome it's a better option (for now anyway).
then use your 10 top websites with whitelisted javascript access on firefox mobile, and full javascript on chrome and came back to say which one was faster.
> Also since people wouldn't use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely.
I'm sure a few might, and it'll likely discourage others from entering the market as well. But I do think that open source alternatives would live on and continue to be used if your guess is correct.
And your guess does seem very plausible.
* Enable Developer Options
* Add Ublock package zip
* Enable in Incognito as well
TL;DR: Them removing it would be a dick move, but not end of the world. We can still install any packages we want.
I commented about it about a month ago[1]
Have you tried Packing them? I have yet to experience this.
Which Google have done to other extensions many times.
As long as there is tech savy people there will be plenty of solutions around.
They just haven't pissed off anyone enough to get a big fork going. Or their code just wasn't good enough, as obviously uBlock Origin is currently doing the same and was written from scratch.
– Maybe we could act as gatekeepers so our competitors have to go through us to advertise on our browser? We could wrap it as "only letting in the nice ads" or whatever…
– Brilliant!
I don't want to block all ads
I want an ad blocker that protects me from popunder (is there any point to those ?) popups, autoplay videos, ad walls and other shitty ads that make my experience awful.
I don't want an adblocker that blocks everything by default and where I have to manually white list all the sites I consult regularly.
I already spent a while on some really good blogs before realizing that adblock was killing all their ads for no reason.
I recall reading that the original intention of popunder ads was to provide a degree of separation between the site content and the ad, as you see the ad. isolated rather than directly next to the site content. By doing so, the ad. provider has to worry less about their brand appearing next to content they may find objectionable.
Their modus operandi appears to be (1) launch edgy experimental stuff, (2) forget it exists, (3) be reminded it exists, (4) ruin it by killing it or rewriting it.
Or they could use the Android entry point. The EU seems to think they have a monopoly there, which would imply a "mobile browser" monopoly.
This is why I'm not going back to Chrome and not going to stop using ad blocker extensions and the network wide ad-blocker at home.
It's not even difficult to do so, by eg. serving pages from a Google-controlled CloudFlare-like proxy service and/or a high-profile Google-style HTML-to-JavaScript encoder. Google's AMP project shows they're willing to throw the decentralized web under the bus.
The real question is: are you ok with ad-financed web sites in general, but have a problem with tracking (like me)? If so, we should really come up with a community-driven criteria for Acceptable Ads, or should disable un-vetted/not-whitelisted JavaScript alltogether.
Turns out, that (currently) involves ad blockers. For a while, I tried to use only uMatrix (i.e. blocking third-party requests), without an ad blocker. Sites broke because they assumed they could load Google Analytics. Workaround: Install uBlock Origin, because it (like NoScript) knows how to fake out specific scripts enough that a stubbed-out version of GA is used and the rest of the page runs correctly.
Isn't that what ABP / Eyeo is doing? You may criticize them for the fee they ask of the Ad companies to include / review their ads, but it's not like the fees are unfair or they aren't doing work that needs to be paid somehow. They even set up a non profit to deal with this matter.
> or should disable un-vetted/not-whitelisted JavaScript alltogether.
This is already being developed by the FSF as a Firefox extension. It makes the modern web completely unusable (of course) but it's the principle that counts, right?
> Like https, this will put alternative ad networks out of business.
How did https do anything like that?
They are a venture-funded company, so they are in it for more than the community, and can find other ways to monetize their service.
As you pointed out, we're a company. That means making money to defend against lawsuits, paying employees, etc.
It's not blackmail though, because as it was also pointed out, most websites join for free. No strings attached. Well, the strings are that the ads they want to display need to meet all of the Acceptable Ads criterias, which we found most users don't mind.
That allows us to find a middle ground between "we're drinking all the beer and pay nothing" that other, more scorched-earth-like adblockers go for, and the "oh gods my eyes"-design some ad-bloated websites go for, which no one really wants.
From a publisher perspective, we're not the evil guys either. We're not reducing anyone's revenue, we're allowing publishers to recuperate some of the losses caused by the user's choice of opting out of really annoying ads.
Hope this made sense!
Also, it's frustrating to still see your company play the "help us out we're broke" card by asking for donations after install even though you're a venture-funded company.
If anything, you guys should be going after the ad-networks since they are the ones allowing the malicious and rude ads to be placed - not the people whose livelihood depends on ads.
You are right. That fee is anything but fair. I was under the impression that they were operating their program under a non-profit, but it doesn't seem so.
FSF's LibreJS initiative is laudible, and something I'm willing to support with what I'm offering on the web. I found that sites that have content worth reading typically aren't script-heavy and entirely usable without script, or by using either F/OSS JavaScript (including jquery) and "trivial scripts" according to FSFs definition. The notorious exceptions are Google Analytics, ReCaptcha, and maybe Disqus, for which solutions must be found. Google Analytics, and the necessity to make use of it might be a case where Google as a major sponsor of web standards are acting in conflict with a solution based on web standards.
Wrt. ABP my initial gut reaction to paid ABP acceptable ads was extremely negative, but maybe I might reconsider.
I don't mind ordinary display adds, I even like them in the sense that I like a web model that's sustainable.
To make most commercial websites usable, I simply disabled Autoplay in FF which silenced the most abusive screaming video ads and made surfing the web pleasant again.
(about:config and set media.autoplay.enabled;false)
I find this a really weird attitude that I just can't get behind.
"Here, let me give you some money by watching something that will try to convince me to buy something that I wouldn't have otherwise bought. Just doing my civic duty here!"
That's what it sounds like to me. You want to help someone else, so you agree to be allowed to be told to buy something you didn't need or know about until you saw the ad. It's... weird. It's a very strange method to power the economy. Allowing your mind to be molded in the shape the big guy wants it for the sake of the little guy.
I myself just flat out refuse to have my mind manipulated like this. There's gotta be a better way for the little guy to make money.
"You owe the companies nothing. You especially don't owe them any courtesy. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs."
"...any advertisement in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours, it belongs to you... its yours to take, rearrange and re use. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head."
Banksy is to "attentional integrity" what Stallman is to software freedom: radical-sounding, heretical to big business, and very very right.
Not saying ad blockers are bad -I use them- just that your analogy breaks down quickly.
I point out that GP is in a mostly voluntarily relationship with those websites.
> The ad-blocking feature, which could be switched on by default within Chrome, would filter out certain online ad types deemed to provide bad experiences for users as they move around the web.
> Unacceptable ad types would be those recently defined by the Coalition for Better Ads, an industry group that released a list of ad standards in March. According to those standards, ad formats such as pop-ups, auto-playing video ads with sound and “prestitial” ads with countdown timers are deemed to be “beneath a threshold of consumer acceptability.”
Implication: Want your ads shown to people? Don't risk another provider, serve them through Google.
Essentially, I believe Google and a subset of their industry competitors (other ad networks) have two goals here:
1. to stem the losses imposed by 100% ad/tracking blockers, by providing a default blocker that deals with very obnoxious ads that might prompt average users to install one of the existing ad blockers.
2. to reduce their need to pay protection money to AdBlock plus etc.
So, if you happen to be using ads that are overly obnoxious (popups, autoplaying videos, etc) then yeah, your message is basically what they're saying, but not because it's non-google, just because it's making the other ad networks look bad.
I don't know how they'll implement it technically, but the fact that they are not talking about the WebKit-style content blocking using compiled pattern lists means they probably have little interest in benefitting end-users (webkit content blockers give better privacy, performance, battery life etc, compared to traditional "run this code every time a website loads" blockers)
By controlling the ad experience at this level (and this possibly being the only way to avoid being blocked), Google can enforce an ad-experience that is akin to in-feed facebook ads.
It also provides a far greater level of security around the ad unit and a far better level of accurate targeting (cookies don't get used, your login does). These two things together provide a new way to interact / monetise those ad units.
I think that guess is wrong. I think Google will block their own ads. There are a few reasons why;
1. They're not stupid. The amount of trust lost in a move like that would be immense. It wouldn't be worthwhile.
2. They don't need to. They just need to make it switched off by default and 90% of users won't ever see it or use it. Only people who are interested will seek it out, and those people are already seeking ad-blocking extensions.
3. Other browsers are implementing it. Google need to include it to stop users who are interested in that feature switching browser.
4. Google need data. They get value from tracking people even if they're not seeing adverts. By blocking the ads specifically, even their own adverts, they still get to track users and derive value from that data. Other ad blocking technology will also block Google's tracking mechanisms, and they really don't want that to happen.
5. Given the fact they have a effective monopoly on adverts on the main web the lost revenue from blocked ads will have a bigger impact on their competitors than them. Google can afford to lose far more ad impressions than the next, much smaller network. They can block their own ads and still drive their competitors out of business. That said, I don't think Google are evil enough to do that. I'm just saying they don't need to let their own ads through if the plan is to kill off the competition.
The ad-blocking they're talking about implementing won't block every ad; they said as much. It'll only block the malicious or annoying ads. Google could block those on it's own network already (maybe they already do!). They'll start block them in the Chrome ad-blocking code. That means they'll block their own ads if adSense is serving something that fails their test. They might even use the same "is this ad bad for the user?" heuristics that they use on their servers, effectively meaning Chrome users can benefit from the work they've done in detecting bad adverts even on sites where the site owner has chosen a different ad network. I think that's a good thing.
Whether we'll ever actually see the result of when it comes to an adSense advert is a separate question - it's in Google's interest to block a bad ad at the origin and send a different one instead so they still get paid. That would mean Chrome never actually blocks an adSense advert because they know exactly what won't be displayed and never send anything that would be blocked. I still see that as Google blocking ads on their own network though, just farther up the chain.
Good point. After using uBlock Origin for a while now, "ads" have become synonymous with "tracking scripts" to me. I'd bet Google's adblocker wouldn't block Google Analytics from running, like uBlock does.
They will probably clearly post criteria for what makes an ad acceptable or not and state that Chrome will block it if it doesn't meet them. Or maybe Chrome will show them but somehow punish the webmaster like they do to sites that don't use HTTPS or have mobile friendly pages.
So if it's any good at blocking Google ads, it costs them money.
If it blocks ads other than Google ones well, and allows Google ones to display, then they run the risk of lawsuits or antitrust action.
Probably a good call. I've actually suggested they do this before. I doubt it made it to them given it was on a private forum. It's amusing to see it happening, though. It's an extension of monopolistic practices where one blocks out all competition to give their own self an advantage.
this is exactly how it would go. This is anything but benevolent, this is another one of googles blatant anti-trust maneuvers to force you deeper into their walled-garden.
What? By know, people are accustomed to Google flip flopping on key decisions; this will be just another instance.
Google is a frigging AD MONOPOLY ... its their major business for crying out loud. And the same company that controls a HUGE portion of all the Internet Ad business is creating an "Ad Blocker".
And this doesn't ring any bells anywhere?
No friend, they are not trying to put "ad blocker" companies out of business. They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business.
Bad ads ruin it for Google. They teach users to mentally block ALL ads. It's like people abusing antibiotics and building a resistance.
Ads that drive me on a different page, cover the full page unless closed or otherwise hamper navigation unless I interact with them first can die in a firey hell.
I've uBlock but youtube and other content creators sites that so far hasn't annoyed me with ads are free to go. I.e. Looking For Group started serving to mobile page redirecting ads, so they went in the blacklist, but until then they were free to serve whatever.
You walking down the street having a guy handing out leaflets, trying to force his leaflet on you... You're most likely to get annoyed by them.
There is a little stand at the corner having leaflets, without anyone yelling in your face or handing it out, you're more likely to go grab one if the product fits you.
Walking to work every morning I have created my real life AdBlock, where I just ignore people handing stuff. (Not their fault... just businesses not understanding how to change ways)
That might be why someone proposed it. But your parent comment mentions why management approved of the risky move:
> They are trying to put "competing internet ad companies" out of business.
So if - and that is a big if - Google goes ahead with this plan, they will have to make absolutely sure that any blocking is based on objective and simple to understand quality criteria.
And for the record, I don't think everyone at Google is evil, but I imagine a few managers are in it for the money and not merely the altruistic idea of making ads better.
On the contrary, it is completely obvious that Google has very little to gain from shaving a few percentage points off competitors and incur the risk of regulatory action.
The greatest danger they face is ad blockers and a general decline of the Web. If Google is in it for the money they must save the Web from death by advertising.
This.
Internet is creating massive monopolies that are gathering an immense power that allow them to kill any other company that tries to compete with them. It's starting to be scary...
If Marine le Pen wins on the other hand...
I look forward to seeing what happens to any businesses that get too greedy and disregard what happens when the pendulum swings left again.
I wonder what would be happening now if we had a wave of left-wing populists taking office instead.
Perhaps electing Le Pen might actually do some good to it by forcing others to change?
A democratic political union must be based on stronger foundations than just having a couple of sister parties sharing the power in turns.
Google already has what, 90% marketshare? They don't need to put their competitors out of business and would gain very little from doing so (their real competition is probably Facebook and they're fundamentally much harder to apply an adblocker to, since they control both the content and the advertising). Google do need to stop the existential threat to the whole industry that adblockers represent.
In the end, it is probably true that the competition is not really an issue, but Google need not "stop the existential threat to the whole industry that adblockers represent", because if it lets too many ads pass people will simply get back to the old third party adblockers.
A concrete example: Chrome is in a position to block those who use canvas/webgl fingerprinting for user tracking, and Google's ad business can avoid being blocked by not doing that.
Which will take years and the fine will be a pitance of the profit. Microsoft got away with anti-competitive behavior several times in the past and they came out better than before. Google can use the time to try to kill of any competition before anyone will stop it, get a slap on the wrist and it will be back to business as usual.
Firefox is overwhelmingly dependent on Yahoo for income, and Yahoo is an ad company.
Overall I feel that Firefox is sufficiently customisable, that it's probably the easiest browser to protect your privacy in and control content. I like Safari, but customisation is harder to do.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, scummy ad companies.
In my mind they're the "I can't afford Adsense" ad company, their website interface feeds into that too.
Also, the pricing system seems quite nice, a continuous second-price auction.
It all seems very "fair".
Also it is easier to block google ads with 3rd party. Since ridiculous ads will be blocked natively, performance will be better I think.
Any technical reason why they couldn't?
Adblock Plus, the most popular adblocker, does not block Google ads by default, because they are considered non-intrusive.
My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use their built in blocker rather than downloading a third party extension which would highly likely block there ads. And if people have a built in blocker that blocks the mostly bad ads, the people would start to hate ads less and be okay with 'good ads'. Also since people wouldn't use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely.
It's a very risky move on Google's part, so would be a bit surprised if it happens. But doing nothing, is equally if not more risky in the long run for there business model.