Especially that part :

> it will be blocking all ads from sites where even one ad displayed on the site doesn’t meet those standards, even if the rest are technically in compliance.

Which can be interpreted as : "only run Google ads, if you use other platforms and we don't like even one of their ads we will block all your ad revenue."

We just need a browser extension to _install_ a single non compliant ad on every page and let chrome do the rest :)

Is it just me or the web is becoming more fragmented than ever: First the Safari intelligent anti tracking stuff, then Firefox's delayed loading and now this. Things will break is subtle ways.

It's always been pretty fragmented by browser. The different only affect some edge case around tracking, don't really mind breaking evil websites.

It's good on long term. The infestation of ad is really really bad. My mother and my girlfriend can hardly browse the web anymore.

My mother and my partner's mother respond every time to those full page takeover ads that mimic a windows dialog box and play scary audio about viruses, tell her to call / give someone her credit card / let them remote into her computer. It's utterly infuriating these parasites are allowed to buy ads.

I aggressively install ad blocks and add domains to /etc/hosts to prevent having to remotely reinstall OSes every couple months.

These are the people google is trying to help with this move, imo. Because ublock still breaks pieces of the web, but they can't be trusted to browse the web without it.

There's a huge but subtle difference between the prevalence of ad blockers vs an ad blocker that is both backed by an ad company and built into the browser (presumably with no way to turn it off).

We've seen examples of ad blockers becoming problematic when they have too much market share (AdBlock Plus).

AdBlock is fine except for not blocking google top links and amazon recommendation. It's still blocking everything else, which is a HUGE LOT.

The fact that AdBlock receives money to break the very thing they're supposed to fix (at the user's expense) is pretty messed up. Sure, it's better than nothing, but that's really not saying much.

There are better options out there that (currently) give you fine-grain control over what goes into your machine, so there is pretty much no reason to give over that control to a corrupt group.

I agree that AdBlock getting paid is messed up. I can't say that it entirely ruined the purpose though.

My parents don't need fine controls. They just need something to block most of the malware, adware and popups. That's the world we live in.

I understand your point that they don't need fine grain controls, but does uBlock Origin require anything beyond the defaults? I'm just not seeing the benefit from using AdBlock Plus, anymore.

Depends what you mean by require. There are some important blacklists on both ublock and adblock that are off by default, they can be enabled.

i agree. i don't think it ruined the purpose. the purpose (in my eyes, yours may see it different) was to reduce offensive, dangerous, and just plain obnoxious advertising.

I don't mind a few unobtrusive ads. I really do mind those stupid ad overlays, ads that unroll themselves on top of the content I'm trying to read, and "scroll here for more" junk.

> Is it just me or the web is becoming more fragmented than ever

No, adblock has been around for a while now, this is just throwing around frivolous claims in an attempt at faux-intellectualism.

The internet is not going to end any more than it did when we put a stop to X-10 popup ads.

This is brilliant

Exactly. I don't see how this can possibly not be considered illegal anti-competitive behavior.

Their goals are not really anti-competitive. The point of this feature is to stop the bleed from ad blocking extensions and alternative browsers which are the real threat to their business.

But there is no way for them to do this that doesn't end up looking really bad.

Probably they know it will get shut down eventually, but it will take years to happen, so worth it.

I think this is a critical point. I bet that Google has reams of internal research on the use of ad-blockers. I am further willing to bet they have discovered the following:

1) Users say they block ads because they are annoying, rather than any deeper philosophical arguments about the nature of advertising

2) Users tend not to bother with white-listing and just use the defaults - i.e. block all ads, even Google!

3) Once they have used an ad-blocker, users are very resistant to browsing the web without one

4) Users who ad-block are among the most educated and tech-savvy, and as such are a valuable demographic to miss out on

5) Ad-block use is growing steadily with no signs of slowing

So, Google's provocative and somewhat desperate move is an attempt to gain control of ad-blocking before it becomes a serious threat to their business, even in the face of serious backlash. I hope they fail.

So Google is responding to criticisms of overly-intrusive advertising with less-intrusive advertising that doesn't poison the well for everyone, and blocking for the ads that do?

That's true villainy right there, how dare they! /s

People concerned with privacy are not against ads because they are annoying but because of the systems of surveillance behind those ads. Making ads less annoying so that the majority of users continue to accept surveillance is villainy from that perspective.

This is just accelerationism. "Let's make ads terrible so people hate them, because I disagree with the fundamental concept of advertising".

Who in this thread has been advocating making ads terrible?

They are not responding to criticisms, but rather that people are installing spam protection for the web, making web advertisement about as relevant as email advertisement. Google did not become one of the richest companies in the world through email advertisement, and the reason is obvious. Email advertisement is kind of dead as it is impossible to have a email box without blocking unwanted email.

The OP simply said all ads are annoying, not "overly intrusive ads". You're responding an imaginary point.

I hope they fail as well. Here is one scenario where I think they will:

1) As you pointed out - Users (or their friends) will go out of their way to install an ad-blocker and set it up the first time.

2) If I still find prominently placed Google ads annoying (and I do, despite the fact that they're not animated or audible), then I will still go out of my way to block them.

> Their goals are not really anti-competitive

One could make the argument that by putting a web browser in Windows, Microsoft was only providing a common service to their default OS. The problem here is that Google makes almost all its revenue from the very medium that they are now actively blocking from other providers.

The point I am making is that they are not doing this to freeze out competitors. They have already won. They don't have any meaningful competition to worry about. The threat is ad blocking and alternative browsers.

That doesn't change the anticompetitive nature of their behavior but it does explain the motivation.

Then I'm really glad sane anti-compete and trust-busting laws wouldn't care about the motivation.

This is using large scale marketshare in one market to effect a tangible and monetary benefit in another market.

According to the article, the ads deemed "overly annoying or intrusive" are defined by "the standards established by the Coalition for Better Ads, of which it is a member". Since it's not Google actually deciding this, how is that anti-competitive?

BTW, the Coalition for Better Ads has many members [0], including Facebook and other big ads providers.

I'm personally not convinced this will solve the issue, but I believe it's a least a step in the right direction.

[0] https://www.betterads.org/members/

> According to the article, the ads deemed "overly annoying or intrusive" are defined by "the standards established by the Coalition for Better Ads, of which it is a member". Since it's not Google actually deciding this, how is that anti-competitive?

The argument I see for this: because it's a group Google, an ad seller, is part of deciding what ads are allowed and then Google blocking violating ads. Arguably, by pairing standards with blocking, the Coalition for Better Ads, including Google, are jointly engaging in a combination in restraint of trade.

An anti-competitive action doesn't become less anti-competitive when instead of one actor with dominant marketshare, you add additional incumbent actors in the market into the decision process and make it an agreement to restrict what products are acceptable to sell and actively block other products in that category.

Let's take TV as a comparison. On TV the ads have guidelines on what they can do and show, set by the tv channel and the broader regulation.

On the internet, there isn't anything, it's the wild west. It can't hurt to get some minimal standards, doesn't matter where it comes from as long as it's enforced.

> set by the tv channel and the broader regulation.

Which is key. Television ad regulations aren't set – and enforced – by the dominant advertisement broker.

The channel can refuse to play any ad for any reason. They standards are partially set by the channel.

...who is not the broker.

Let's get back in times when there was TV but there was no regulation yet. A channel surely had to be the broker and set the standards.

Internet is young. There will be some regulations and standards, eventually.

Online advertising has existed for over 25 years. [1] Online ad brokers (i.e., competitors with Google) have existed for nearly 20 years. It is incredibly disingenuous of you to pretend as if Google is in any way "forced" to play both gatekeeper and ad broker, like no-one else is trying to compete in that space. Developing Chrome was a deliberate choice by Google to position themselves to own the means by which users consume ads, search (ads), and video (ads).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising#Display_ads

Legally, it matters a lot whether it's the government enforcing rules which restrain trade or a private coalition including the major incumbent players in the industry being restrained.

> but I believe it's a least a step in the right direction.

Boy, I don't. Ask yourself why this is not an extension instead (even if installed by default)? Also, where can I download this ad list? Why do you believe lack of transparency is a step in the right direction? You really believe that the perpetrators are the best enforcers?

From the HN guidelines:

Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

Saying "According to the article" is not insinuating someone didn't read it. It's actually very close to "The article mentions that" which is the suggested phrase in your very quote.

I edited my comment to follow the guidelines.

Thank you for the clarification :) Hopefully jwilk edits their comment accordingly.

Too late to edit my comment, but I confirm that jicks's comment is fine now.

I'm pretty sure GP edited their comment.

Is Chrome going to block ads on the Google search results page for taking up more than 30% of the page?

My guess is no, because while they may take 30%+ of the screen initially, they don't represent 30%+ of the full page (see [0] for more details).

[0] https://www.betterads.org/mobile-ad-density-higher-than-30/

They wouldn't be adding it to Chrome if it did. That's the problem.

Although that was the central point, they did a lot more than just default the browser. IMO I don't think bundling a browser in and of itself is anti competitive.

"Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct." [1]

"Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified" [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...

Because there are multiple competing products you can switch to, or even multiple additional products (i.e. ublock/adblock) which you can add in Google's own product if you disagree with their stance.

It's not anti-competitive just because you don't like it.

Anti-competitive behavior isn't necessarily monopolistic.

Google is leveraging Chrome's dominant market position to (potentially) harm their competitors in an unrelated market.

You were always able to install Firefox or Chrome on Windows, but Microsoft was fined for using their dominant market position (Windows) to push a product in an unrelated market (web browsers).

And I used IE to download Netscape. Didn't stop that being anti-competitive.

It's about what the average user is aware of. Google just decided to have the majority of computer and smartphone users be opted in to an ad blocker that, of course, won't block Google ads.

Ad companies don't get to choose which browser their ads are viewed with. Google is abusing their position as the market leader in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another market.

It's pre-installed. Their built-in adblocker will instantly get a huge market share, on the back of Chrome. There's no parallel to that with physical products.

Nobody was blocking people from installing Netscape on windows PCs AFAIK.

Google isn't setting the standard, nor are Google Ads immune from being blocked.

The Microsoft comparison doesn't apply at all.

The standard is defined here:

https://www.betterads.org/standards/

The committe membership is defined her:

https://www.betterads.org/members/

Note it does include Google, as well as Microsoft, Facebook, the Washington Post, Unilever & others.

Far from a "Google" thing, this seems an attempt for an industry to police itself.

Given the ad experiences I've seen on many sites, if anything it's overdue.

As someone familiar with how this group came into being, I can tell you that Google is very much in the driver's seat. I don't fault them for that and it's probably unavoidable - but it's worth at least being transparent about it on a forum like this.

It probably is, but (as with MS and IE), by the time the courts finally give a verdict on the matter it will be too late for everyone else.

The only thing that has changed since the 90s is antitrust enforcement, and even then the DOJ did not go nearly as far as they could have with Microsoft.

largest market share != monopoly

In HN community:

Because people in HN do have double standards when it comes to Microsoft vs Google.

Microsoft wanted you to buy their software. Google gives it away for free. That's the only thing I've come up with that explains the enduring romance.

It's not "free", they give it away to sell ads. With Microsoft, before the constant update stuff, you could at least say you buy version X of product Y and then you have that, like some tool in a tool shed. Now that's a shifting mess of attached strings, too, but Google was never anything but that.