> 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.