Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Google Could Include Ad-Blocker in Future Versions of Chrome Browser

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
50,100
11,365



Google is planning to introduce an ad-blocking feature in both the mobile and desktop versions of its Chrome web browser, according to sources who spoke to The Wall Street Journal.

The feature could be turned on by default within Chrome and would be designed to filter out certain online ad types that result in poor user experiences on the web, as defined by industry group the Coalition for Better Ads.

According to the coalition's standards, ad formats like pop-ups, auto-playing ads with audio, and ads with countdown timers fall under "a threshold of consumer acceptability" and could therefore be targets of any blocker.

Google could announce the feature within weeks, according to the paper's sources, but it is still working out specific details and could still decide to reverse course and can the feature. One possible implementation of the filter includes blocking all advertising on a website if it hosts just one offending ad, ensuring a set standard is kept by website owners. Another option is to target specific ads.

For a company that generated over $60 billion in revenue from online advertising in 2016, the feature would seem a surprise move. However Google appears to be reacting against the growth of third-party blocking tools - some of which charge fees to let ads pass through their filters - by considering offering its own solution, which would let it control which ads pass through filters.

In the U.S., Chrome commands nearly half of the browser market across all platforms, according to online analytics provider StatCounter.

Article Link: Google Could Include Ad-Blocker in Future Versions of Chrome Browser
 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,669
10,809
It's a slippery slope, because the coalition is run by ad agencies. However, and I'm really reaching here, if they somehow have a set standard of what's acceptable and what's not, I think ads may change in the future. Wishful thinking? Maybe. I'd say the worst offending ad networks are the spammy ones, like PopAds which serve ads regardless of whether or not they deliver a payload.
[doublepost=1492672681][/doublepost]
Perhaps they are thinking of blocking not-by-google ads to monopolize on ad revenue.
https://www.betterads.org/members/
 

sudo1996

Suspended
Aug 21, 2015
1,496
1,182
Berkeley, CA, USA
In a way, mainstream browsers have had ad blockers in the form of security features like popup blocking. Bad ads can be annoying or even attack users, especially inexperienced ones who click the fake "download" button on a sketchy site*. This is a good step by Google and others.

Safari's Reader Mode is actually a pretty intense ad blocker. It strips all news articles of any ads or other annoyances. Heck, Apple's form of ad blocking doesn't get detected by the news sites, so I don't even have to bother with ad-blocker-blocker-blocker software. Apple News seems to do something similar, and I don't know how they get away with it.

* I remember downloading mods on Minecraft Forum, and modmakers would always complain about people blocking ads in their Adfly links. Well, I tried unblocking them once, and I somehow got a popup for a fake Flash installer that immediately dropped a DMG into my downloads and spammed me with Javascript dialogs. So... nope, never again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vanilla35

WordsmithMR

macrumors 6502
Mar 17, 2015
368
452
Murica
That'll be nice for the mobile version. Certainly prefer it to Safari... with the exception of the inability to use an ad blocker.
 

TwoBytes

macrumors 68030
Jun 2, 2008
2,734
1,565
It's not really an ad blocker...it just will filter what ads you get ;)
Clever stuff Google...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Col4bin

ck2875

macrumors 6502a
Mar 25, 2009
997
2,596
Brighton
How ironic. My iPhone just blocked this very page coming in through twitter. Affiliate link i suppose?

I couldn't even click the "comments" link at the bottom the of article when I visited the site directly. And had to do the "reload without content blockers" option to even get into the comments section since the entire page was being blocked. I'm guessing MacRumors added something to track its users every movement?
 
  • Like
Reactions: thisisnotmyname

itsmilo

macrumors 68040
Sep 15, 2016
3,863
8,463
Berlin, Germany
It's not really an ad blocker...it just will filter what ads you get ;)
Clever stuff Google...

The EU will love this idea. NOT

I couldn't even click the "comments" link at the bottom the of article when I visited the site directly. And had to do the "reload without content blockers" option to even get into the comments section since the entire page was being blocked. I'm guessing MacRumors added something to track its users every movement?

Yes same here. Thats what i actually meant. Shame on u MR
 
  • Like
Reactions: thisisnotmyname

freediverx

macrumors 6502a
Feb 19, 2006
985
945
Perhaps they are thinking of blocking not-by-google ads to monopolize on ad revenue.


"Filtering would be based on standards created by an organization called the Coalition for Better Ads, which happens to count Google and Facebook as members."
https://www.recode.net/2017/4/19/15365768/google-chrome-ad-blocker

If you care about your privacy, delete Chrome and install uBlock Origins on Safari or Firefox.
[doublepost=1492687736][/doublepost]
Sounds good. No one is being forced to use it...

"Of course, Google won't block Google ads. Instead, Chrome will target "unacceptable ads" as defined by the Coalition for Better Ads. The Coalition for Better Ads... counts Google and Facebook among its members."

"This would give Google control over the ad-blocking market, the ad industry as a whole, and even over its competitors, which offer many of the "unacceptable ad" formats the coalition is targeting."

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...locker-to-all-versions-of-chrome-web-browser/

"Google made a change in Chrome 57 that removes options from the browser to manage plugins such as Google Widevine, Adobe Flash, or the Chrome PDF Viewer... This means essentially that Chrome users won't be able to disable -- some -- plugins anymore, or even list the plugins that are installed in the web browser."

https://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/29/google-removes-plugin-controls-from-chrome/
 
  • Like
Reactions: atmenterprises

freediverx

macrumors 6502a
Feb 19, 2006
985
945
That'll be nice for the mobile version. Certainly prefer it to Safari..


Are you really that naive?
[doublepost=1492689113][/doublepost]
It's not really an ad blocker...it just will filter what ads you get ;)

To be more exact, it will filter non-Google ads, and in doing so attempt to dissuade people from installing a real ad blocker like uBlock Origins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sudo1996

navaira

macrumors 68040
May 28, 2015
3,809
5,015
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Am I the only person who would be happy to have Google ads and other non-intrusive stuff and get rid of autoplaying videos with sound (I'm looking at you, cnn.com) and "XXX GIRLS WAITING HERE FOR YOU CLICK CLICK AND HERE IS A PREVIEW OF THEIR BOOBS, WE HOPE YOUR PARENTS ARE LOOKING"?
 

thisisnotmyname

macrumors 68020
Oct 22, 2014
2,348
4,931
known but velocity indeterminate
Am I the only person who would be happy to have Google ads and other non-intrusive stuff and get rid of autoplaying videos with sound (I'm looking at you, cnn.com) and "XXX GIRLS WAITING HERE FOR YOU CLICK CLICK AND HERE IS A PREVIEW OF THEIR BOOBS, WE HOPE YOUR PARENTS ARE LOOKING"?

Tough call. The first browser manufacturer to make ALL video content click to play (or just flat out configurable to be disabled) has my business but ads are a slippery slope even when a network is currently unobtrusive. Ads are such a popular method of malware distribution I just feel the need to block them all for my computing safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sudo1996

Tycho24

Suspended
Aug 29, 2014
2,071
1,394
Florida
Sounds good. No one is being forced to use it, and plenty of alternatives if it does not meet ur needs

Lol, you seem to be the only one here trusting enough to take this at face value & actually believe that a company that makes over 90% of their revenue from ads would spend their time, money, and energy figuring out ways to serve those ads to LESS people, make LESS money, and serve their clients LESS.

I tend to be in the "wary" camp....
Obviously, there has to be an ulterior motive- and it looks like: in this case- they create an "acceptable ad" design (which just so happens to be their EXACT ad template), then block all others... w/ the faux goal of looking out for consumers. It's several levels of sleazy and disingenuous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atmenterprises

341328

Suspended
Jul 18, 2009
732
951
Let's just call every product a false name.
Android = personal data sucker
Chrome = track what android misses
Ad blocker = ad tracker pro
 

dukeblue219

macrumors regular
Dec 18, 2012
144
223
Of course, it won't block Google ads, the most common ad on the entire internet by far. Just ads from others. Could certainly be an anti-trust suit there for doing so.

This is the problem I thought of. Google can't block all ads because that's their core business. If Google only serves "good" ads and blocks "bad" ads, then they are blocking competitors and, in their position dominating the browser market, that's a huge anti-trust problem for them I would think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sudo1996

MH01

Suspended
Feb 11, 2008
12,107
9,298
Lol, you seem to be the only one here trusting enough to take this at face value & actually believe that a company that makes over 90% of their revenue from ads would spend their time, money, and energy figuring out ways to serve those ads to LESS people, make LESS money, and serve their clients LESS.

I tend to be in the "wary" camp....
Obviously, there has to be an ulterior motive- and it looks like: in this case- they create an "acceptable ad" design (which just so happens to be their EXACT ad template), then block all others... w/ the faux goal of looking out for consumers. It's several levels of sleazy and disingenuous.

I've worked wit ads for a while on websites, you get your premium ads where the money is and the network ads where there is little $$$$ and big risk. Google will not shoot themselves in the foot with premium ads. Premium ads also go through googles systems. It's the network crap, that is a risk and gets exploited . If you were only shown premium ads, you would not have all the adware issues we get.

Whatever google implements will not harm their main revenue source. Though if they can be seen to provide a safer web experience , less people will be likely to block ads all together.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.