Re:Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
by mseebach on Thursday April 20, 2017 @01:38PM
(#14158920)
I didn't say "what's good for Google is good for the internet", I said, in effect, "what's good for the internet is good for Google".
And please do refrain from fixing my posts for me, I am perfectly capable of expressing my opinions without your assistance.
Re:Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
by cat199 on Friday April 21, 2017 @11:22AM
(#14166344)
> what's good for the internet is good for Google
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' ?
Re:Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser
by greenshackle2 on Friday April 21, 2017 @12:08PM
(#14166784)
Or that 'what is good for the internet' is a subset of 'what is good for Google'. Language is murky but that's a more reasonable interpretation.
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.