> Whenever you have the browser maker, and punitive actions controlled by the same party, and arbitrarily, its a recipe for disaster.

Judge, jury, and executioner as they say.

So because of who they are Google should not be allowed to attempt to improve the quality of ads on the internet?

Why would Chrome being run a foundation that is funded overwhelmingly by Alphabet make a difference? Chromium is already public -- aren't there already forks that focus on privacy and ad blocking?

Google owns the DoubleClick platform - the largest ad server with the most sites and running the biggest ad exchange in the world. They approve, serve, and support all of the intrusive ad formats in the first place, even on their own websites.

This is absolutely not about quality but a political move to counteract ad blocking extensions and companies. While the intent seems noble, it's likely to cause no real improvements compared to better existing options like not serving these formats at all.

As long as websites display annoying ads, people will have the incentive to use ad-blockers, no matter how polished and non-intrusive DoubleClick ads be.

I don't think DFP is the biggest culprit of annoying ads. If they were,Google would definitely have taken the less controversial option of imposing stringent rules around DFP creatives. The biggest culprits are the up and coming ad networks that try to differentiate themselves and deliver big numbers for clients by providing super high impact ads.

That may be so. But it is also illegal to piss at the end of the platform in the NYC subway.

You don't see a massive conflict of interest here?

Sure, I just don't see why that should be disqualifying. If they are too shy about blocking ads, then most users will not even perceive that this feature exists and the status quo is unchanged. If they block even a handful of the worst offenders, it's a win for Chrome users. And if those blocks encourage people to clean up their act then it's a win for everyone.

I don't know. Maybe there is still a small benefit but I think their main reason for participation is to steer the effort into a favorable to them direction. Some benefits will come out of it but any real progress will be blocked or massively watered down because it would cut into their bottom line.

For example, how could we ever confirm that Google treats reports on its ads the same as reports on other ads? It's unlikely that we will be able to make that confirmation, and should probably instead assume they are not treating them the same and insist that Google prove that they are. Err on the side of caution and all that.

>Sure, I just don't see why that should be disqualifying

The same reason every conflict of interest is a problem. You're not advocating for what's best for the side you are supposed to be representing because you are also representing a self interest.

So the question is who if not Google? If Google steps aside, who?

This like trying to something about the opioid epidemic. It's hard to find money so let's just take money from opioid manufacturers.

I get the point, but what's the solution exactly then? The fundamental problem lies in how ads industry works and how the psychology of ads work. Given Google owns one of the largest ad platform, it has the "power" to decide how an ad should be displayed, right? Because of conflict of interest, then what is the solution? Every problem has to have some solution. The argument here and above is driving us into a circle - no one knows, so Google is the "obvious" choice. I don't want to see ads myself, tbh, and this announcement doesn't really make a big difference anyway, but I am specifically asking if not Google, who and what's next?

I think we should use ad blockers.

The users installing ad blockers were doing okay

Microsoft had a policy "Embrace, extend, exterminate". One could suspect that Google tries something similar here.

These are good points. I think the reason this kind of conflict really rubs the wrong way is because these kinds of things tend to have sour legacy effects at inopportune moments.

Self-regulation should always come with a clear, convincing, and transparent rationale.

There isn’t an INTRINSIC conflict of interest. The ideal is fewer, more expensive ads with higher conversion rates. Is there a stable operating point, though?

Could you please not use allcaps for emphasis in HN comments? This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Don't forget that Goggle needs exponential growth to support its stick price. They can't aim for a stable point. They need growth at almost any cost.

In order to actually protect Chrome from Google influence, it would need to switch to the Firefox model: Selling default search to the highest bidder. It might, then, still be Google. But other search engines could bid for their share, and it would prevent Google from lowballing their funding.

(Also, imagine the hilarity if the default search of Chrome ever became Bing.)