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

[MacRumors]

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

 

[Hiran]

Perhaps they are thinking of blocking not-by-google ads to monopolize on ad revenue.

 

[Zenithal]

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/

 

[MH01]

Sounds good. No one is being forced to use it, and plenty of alternatives if it does not meet ur needs

 

[Zenithal]

Sounds good. No one is being forced to use it, and plenty of alternatives if it does not meet ur needs

There's some good rumblings from Mozilla and their Quantum codebase change.

 

[itsmilo]

How ironic. My iPhone just blocked this very page coming in through twitter. Affiliate link i suppose?

 

[Col4bin]

"Google" and "ad blocker" in the same sentence? An oxymoron in its truest sense.

 

[sudo1996]

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.

 

[WordsmithMR]

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]

It's not really an ad blocker...it just will filter what ads you get
Clever stuff Google...

 

[ck2875]

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?

 

[freediverx]

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

Wow, MacRumors, way to bury the lead. No mention of that fact that Google has no intention of blocking their own ads.

 

[Agit21]

Too late Google. I already use the stock Samsung browser on my S7. Adblock enabled.

 

[itsmilo]

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

 

[freediverx]

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/

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

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.

 

[freediverx]

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.

 

[navaira]

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]

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.

 

[Tycho24]

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.

 

[TMRJIJ]

Google Chrome Ad Blocker is sponsored by [Insert Google Ad]

 

[341328]

Let's just call every product a false name.
Android = personal data sucker
Chrome = track what android misses
Ad blocker = ad tracker pro

 

[John.B]

Foxes guarding the henhouse.

 

[dukeblue219]

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.

 

[MH01]

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.