>My computer, my rules.
This is really the only thing that matters. Ads are not a working model for monetization on the web for this reason, and this is non-negotiable. Ads are a non-starter. It's as simple as that. If anyone can't find a different way to support their content, then the web is better off without them. "Better ads" is putting lipstick on a pig - I'd sooner not invite the pig into my living room, thank you.
I use OpenBSD and Fedora Linux for the majority of my work and I heavily filter my personal and work connections. Being I run the firewall at work, I took the liberty of blocking all advertising connections to our buildings to save on bandwidth. My boss was thrilled to learn this could be done.
People are horrified to learn that I, an IT veteran of now 20 years have the attitude I do towards technology. It seems everyday there is a new startup offering the same old dreck that all of them seem to offer--ways to divest you of your privacy, freedoms, etc. I never bite. I stick with the minimalism I always have.
Or maybe their website, their rules? Otherwise this is like walking into a store and telling them to take off their ads, because your eyes, your rules.
We all know that HTML is an opt-in language, in that user-agents are designed to render the tags that they support and ignore the ones they don't.
My user-agents do not support ads at all.
That sounds great.
Sorry I'm all out of car-themed analogies.
They don't have to serve me content. But since they do, I can view it however I wish.
That's not the problem the parent had:
>> There are no "better" ads. The only good ads are the ones I cannot see.
> My computer, my rules
So my reply was mostly about the store analogy.
Now they are on the same level as Microsoft. The Orweillian attempts at redefining language is... not surprising. This is beyond regular corporate-speak.
Their search results are full of spam.
They take hostage Gmail accounts.
It seems that everything "cool" they do... has a sinister, ulterior motive.
I don't know if all the good they have done outweighs the bad.
It gave you the choice to enable or disable, in equally sized buttons.
Today, you instal Chrome and are immediately asked to sign in without being aware this “syncs” your browsing history to Google.
> I don't know if all the good they have done outweighs the bad.
Well, I wouldn't call Google outright sinister. That's just what happens when capitalism goes unchecked. Too bad that even the EU, even the mothership of regulations Germany, didn't have the guts to put some red lines (and consumer rights!) towards Google.
You have to love the tripe in the article: "Better ads experience..." No one enjoys the experience. No one except those in a position to make money from same. Everyday IT people and others find ads intrusive, annoying, and dangerous. Ads are a major vector for malware. Again, my rules, my computer. I've not seen an ad in many years, but I do keep up with the tech and means to keep blocking all newcoming means to circumvent my own security.