Slashdot Mirror


Google Chrome Now Has Resource-Blocking Adblock

MackieChan writes "It seems to have slipped under the radar, but Google Chrome now has resource-blocking abilities, and may have had the ability for some time. Using the 'beforeload' event on the document, an extension can now intercept resources from loading. Adblock for Chrome has already added it, and I expect the other 'ad-blocking' extensions have as well. Before you start praising Google, however, it's the WebKit team that deserves your credit; one Chromium developer responded to praise by stating '... thank Apple — they added it to WebKit, we just inherited it.' Firefox vs. Chrome just got a bit more exciting."

8 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Uh, not really by ewhac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every reason people used to give in favor of Firefox now applies to Chrome, times ten.

    Incorrect. Chrome can't run NoScript.

    And before you say, "Chrome lets you control JavaScript execution, blah blah blah," yes it does at a very coarse level. NoScript is much more fine-grained, and provides substitute scripts for sites that "need" to run crap from google-analytics et al.

    It looks like this functionality may bring NoScript that much closer to Chrome.

    Schwab

  2. Re:It does say something about Google by calmofthestorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I suspect it's because Google knows that virtually no one uses AdBlock, and that those who do aren't the sort that tend to click on ads anyway. Same reason they let you opt out of their DoubleClick tracking cookie -- you won't bother.

    --
    93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
  3. Most of Google's revenue is advertising. by lhaeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looking here we can see that, for 2009, Google made 23,651 million in revenue. Considering that 22,889 of those millions were from advertising, you have to wonder how long google will tolerate ad blocking in their products. Sure, it is fine now as not many people use chrome, and even fewer of those people install an ad blocking plug-in, but what about if it becomes more popular? Will they still tolerate it then? One wonders what would happen to google if Microsoft decided to make ad blocking default in Internet Explorer.

  4. Re:Uh, not really by stonedcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You seem to be assuming that the user wants to run each and every script on the pages they encounter... this is not the case.
    One of the main reasons to use Noscript is to avoid scripts that are not designed with your best interest in mind.

    --
    You can't take the sky from me.
  5. Re:Still waiting for... by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wholeheartedly agree with this, strictly in the "load after" sense. I cannot stand it when the content I am interested won't load because some overworked ad server is stalled.

    That said, I'm also an "asshole" who blocks ads. Why? Because I don't care for the way they're shoved in my face constantly. I'm sorry, but I don't care how much you polish it, a turd is a turd, and I want nothing to do with it. Same goes for most ads. I really don't care about the product or service, and shoving it in my face with interstitial ads or flash pop-overs or whatever only makes me hate your brand even more.

    I'm tired of being demonized when it's the advert companies who don't have a clue. Get it together, stop bludgeoning me with your dreck, and I might stop blocking it.

  6. Re:It does say something about Google by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    no, I think its more down to the type of Ads that are blocked. Block Google adwords? Pointless.

    Block a non-Google flash-based flashing lights and scrolling text and attention-catching beeps, you betcha.

    In other words, adblocking is actually beneficial to Google as it gives Google ads more marketshare (ie by reducing the competition).

  7. That may be why they are doing it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, if Google makes a good ad blocking system that is included by default, many people will just use that. That means they can control what it does, and what defaults it has. Thus maybe by default it only blocks annoying ads. It stops interstitials, animated crap, popups/unders and so on. However it permits text ads and simple banner ads, which is what Google does. So people say "Ahh this is nice, the Internet isn't annoying," and don't go looking for anything else, or even adjusting the settings.

    You have to remember many people don't hate ads, what they hate is ANNOYING ads. I personally don't mind ads, sometimes they are even interesting. I don't run ad block because I appreciate sites need to make money. However I do run Flashblock because I hate annoying ads and that's what they usually are. I hate ads that interrupt my browsing, or that put a heavy load on my system. So an adblock software that just blocks the annoying shit would be ok in my book.

    If they include nothing, people have to look elsewhere. Maybe what they get is an app written by a "No ads at all ever," kind of zealot that just straight blocks everything, including Google. that hurts them, of course.

    As such by being pragmatic about it, they can have a measure of control over it. If they just try to pretend it doesn't exist, they may get something they don't want.

  8. The Internet without advertisers by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may shock some people, but there was an Internet (and a web) before there were commercially supported websites.

    It was smaller, but it worked just fine. In fact, it worked beautifully. Many of us want it back.