Adsense ads may or may not be obnoxious, that's a matter of aesthetic preference. But they are definitely effective. Part of why I block ads is I don't want those commercial interests changing the way I think.

>The stated goal is to block especially obnoxious ads, of the kind adsense doesn't do.

Either way you think the relation goes probably depends on your opinion of Google, but I would take this as thinking backwards.

Google has lots of interest in preventing Adsense from being blocked as part of some broad-stroke policy, so everything they do as part of their adblocking policy has that in mind - wherever users prefer the Chrome native policy, Google wins. Whatever criteria gets picked for the adblocker is going to fit Adsense pretty well, or else Google loses.

If Adsense, and the ad revenue model, weren't deciding factors in introducing these partial blockers in the first place, Google wouldn't be taking the steps to implement one.

Put another way, this is an example of standard Google strategy: defend and control the approaches to the advertising river of gold.

Chrome was itself just such an investment. By controlling a major browser (eventually, the dominant browser), they can prevent Mozilla or Microsoft from cutting them out.

Now they want to prevent the increasing pool of ad blockers from freezing out adsense. Happily for Google, this means that advertisers will prioritise advertising through them, as they will only be guaranteed to show up in Chrome if they use adsense.

Their next step will be to bundle Contributor with Chrome. Again, by happy coincidence, this blocks out anyone else from getting a good run at microsubscription. Last I checked, the design is intended to be revenue-neutral for Google.

Disclosure: I have been working on a business, Robojar, intended to remove advertising and bypass paywalls in exchange for microsubscriptions. Google have a very similar model in Contributor.

> Disclosure: I have been working on a business, Robojar, intended to remove advertising and bypass paywalls in exchange for microsubscriptions. Google have a very similar model in Contributor.

Good luck! I love the idea of micropayments from a fixed budget to support sites, but Contributor's bidding-based system was not a good path at all.

> they will only be guaranteed to show up in Chrome if they use adsense

That's the worst-case scenario, as far as power abuse here. But they might be fair! We'll have to see.

I want to give Google the credit for a conceptually elegant approach that will slot neatly into the existing bidding system.

But it seems to think of humans and adtech bidding ecosystems as identical economic agents. If we're all perfect consumers, sure, the system converges to an equilibrium.

That seems like a mighty generous "if". It's already annoying to manage the mental cost of schemes like Patreon's. How much more annoying is to have to forecast, several weeks in advance, a bidding system that settles in milliseconds, millions of times per minute?

It's worth noting that I may be misunderstanding or misrepresenting the nuances and design of the Contributor scheme. I'm a potential competitor, my remarks ought to be look on skeptically.

But likewise I ask people to follow the money. Cui bono? In this case: Google.

My main objection to the bidding system is not even the unpredictability, but that it rewards the wrong things. I don't want to pay more to a site that happens to have car insurance ads. I don't want to pay less to a site that installed fewer banners.

...hang on, when did google contributor relaunch as a service that pays per-page-load, is opt-in per domain, and is basically useless?

Google, you manage to do youtube red just fine. Try harder.

Oh wow, you're right. The model has gotten even more cognitively expensive.

This somewhat widens my ray of hope.

> especially obnoxious ads, of the kind adsense doesn't do.

That's your opinion, not everyone's. Luckily I'll easily be able to use what meets my definition of obnoxious with this feature (i.e. custom lists for this native blocker) instead of yours or this consortium's, right?

I'm interested to hear your definition of "especially obnoxious" ads that fits adsense. And no, "all ads" doesn't count.

Unless adsense has gotten worse since I last looked? I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the advertising space.

> And no, "all ads" doesn't count

Says who? You? Google? A consortium of advertising companies?

Because it's meaningless to define "especially obnoxious X" to be the same thing as "all X". If you do that, you're not even trying to engage in a discussion, you're just trying to 'win'.

I thought it was clear that I was separating ads into multiple categories. If you tell me you honestly don't understand then I will reword it in other terms for you. Let me know what you need.

> You make this sound like some kind of trick

That is what it is