Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Chrome Starts Testing a Built-in Ad Blocker on Windows, Android (mspoweruser.com)

Posted by msmash on from the cleaning-the-web dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Earlier this year, Google was rumored to be working on a built-in ad blocker for its Chrome browser. The new ad blocker inside Chrome won't block every ad you see on the web -- instead, it'll only block ads that are considered intrusive and go against the standards set by the Coalition for Better Ads. Google has started testing the new built-in ad blocker for Chrome today on the desktop and Android devices. The latest canary release for Google Chrome includes a new option under Chrome's Settings where you can enable the new ad blocker inside Chrome. Users can enable the new feature by going to the Content options inside Chrome's settings page (chrome://settings/content/ads). The built-in ad blocker should automatically block ads that are considered "intrusive." But Google Chrome also lets you strictly block ads on certain sites, and you can also choose to allow ads on certain sites if you'd like.

38 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. You mean... by TFlan91 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean, Google will block adds not owned, operated by or sold by Google.

    1. Re:You mean... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Speaking strictly for myself, its worthless if it does not stop one particular set of Ads which appear to be hosted by Google - at least I get the "Ad closed by Google" when I "X" the ad. Its the Battleships ad, ubiquitous and intensely annoying.
      So what does it mean if Google has the only browser which is prepared to natively block Google ads? Are there not antitrust implications there?

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    2. Re:You mean... by Dwedit · · Score: 2

      They're totally gonna get sued for this.

    3. Re:You mean... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's easy to be cynical, but if they can stop the worst abuse then advertising might remain a viable way to pay for web content.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:You mean... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, Google has been pretty good about keeping their ads unobtrusive. If this coalition publishes a standard for acceptable ads which any advertiser can follow, and Chrome's ad blocker adheres to that standard, then I don't really see a problem if most or all of Google's ads also adhere to the standard and thus aren't blocked.

      I've had to resort to a strict ad blocker (uBlock Origin), but I'd really like to support the sites I like by allowing their ads through. But it seems every time I try that, I get bombarded with obnoxious or intrusive ads which force me to block them again. I think Google may be on to something. Blocking ads on a site-by-site basis doesn't give advertisers any incentive to clean up their ads since they don't really control the sites where the ads show up. But blocking ads on the basis of how intrusive they are creates a clear incentive for advertisers to move away from obnoxious ads.

    5. Re:You mean... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, but they poisoned that particular well by dumping too much toxic trash into it, so nobody wants to drink a drop from it anymore.

      You want to advertise, fine. You want me to read them, no. No chance. The advertising industry abused us far too long to be granted ANY kind of tolerance anymore.

      Advertisers, to play with something poisonous!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:You mean... by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed 100% with this. I'd be really open to have ads that follow a standard. I use uBlock Origin in conjunction with uMatrix and so I really don't have an issue if nothing is ever developed, but having a view of "behind-the-scenes" and knowing that ads are how some sites are paid for, I'd be willing to relent -- given there is a standard that is followed.

    7. Re: You mean... by fubarrr · · Score: 3, Informative

      I checked their Canary build... Google's "intrusive" ads are defined not per ad, but by a list of ad servers pretty much all belonging to an Eastern European ad syndicate

    8. Re:You mean... by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree completely. Ads need to be obtrusive to be effective. If they don't steal your attention away from what you were doing, than they are not doing their job. Ads which blend into the background are not ads that anyone wants to pay for. It was demonstrated a long time ago that subliminal advertising doesn't work.
       
      There are no ads which are unobtrusive, and there never will be.

      I'd really like to support the sites I like by allowing their ads through.

      Not me! If I'm on a site I'm there to enjoy the site, not have that enjoyment interrupted by parasites trying to separate me from my money. If I like a site enough that I value it, I'll give them money if they set up a convenient way for me to do it. What I won't do is allow them to use virtual carnies to distract me from why I'm there in an attempt to get my money. That's a really asshole way to run a business.
       
      Between the malware, auto-play shit, overlays, content jumping around the page, and simple breaks in the content I'm actively trying to consume, I see no reason to see any ad ever. They are almost all abusive in one way or another, and websites need to figure out another way to keep the lights on. The core of the web is that my device gets sent content, and it figures out how to display it. I choose not to display the ads, and until everything is app-ized, that's the way it's going to stay for me.

      People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

      You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

      Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

      You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

      – Banksy

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    9. Re:You mean... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Well just as long as Google stays responsible on their adds then I am good with it.
      The problem I always had with adds on the internet ever sense 1994 were adds that just got overly aggressive. The adds help pay for the content people want to see, however they shouldn't prevent people from being able to access the content, or just disrespectful to the cost of bandwidth, and time on the peoples devices.

      We use to had popup windows, message box loops, full screen thick box adds, adds that use a ton of resources, that slows your pc to a crawl. Adds that have malware attachments to them....

      In short if we stuck with the small banner add I wouldn't have that much issues with them.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:You mean... by apoc.famine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I posted pretty much the same thing a thread or two below. I'm a decade and a half into an all-out war with advertising. And outside of a few apps on my phone, I'm largely winning. If you want my money, interrupting what I'm doing, pissing me off, and begging for it is not the way to get it. Bogging down my computer and infecting me with malware is definitely not the way to do it. Provide a product I want and a convenient way for me to pay for it, and I'll fork over the cash. This is not rocket science.
       
      From this standpoint, I really like what Patreon is doing. I support a dozen or so content creators on that site, because it's easy for me to do. I go there, get the content they produce with no advertising, and I throw them a few dollars every month/video/podcast/etc. for their troubles. My social contract is between myself and the people producing content that I'm interested in. It doesn't include aggressive digital carnies trying to abuse me and scam me out of money standing between myself and the content creators.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    11. Re:You mean... by ChatHuant · · Score: 2

      if they can stop the worst abuse then advertising might remain a viable way to pay for web content.

      The issue I have is that advertising (especially Google advertising) has become so mixed with tracking and egregious privacy invasion that I don't see how the two can be split apart again. I have no guarantee the ad slinger won't also drop a cookie, log my IP or use any of so many other mechanisms to follow me around the internet and spy on all my actions.

      If companies (again, especially Google) wouldn't track, I would probably be fine with simple non overly annoying ads or with "sponsored links". Since they do, I won't accept any ads, period.

    12. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ads need to be obtrusive to be effective. If they don't steal your attention away from what you were doing, than they are not doing their job.

      There are non-obtrusive ads that manage to steal my attention, namely those where the companies are politely and informatively telling about their new products which already interest me and about which I want to read on a special interest site focusing those products and their objective comparisons and trends related to them. Too bad many marketing communications professionals don't know how to do that yet with their products.

    13. Re:You mean... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not turning off my ad blocker either. But like it or not, a lot of internet services are ad funded, including Slashdot.

      At least with Google they are regulated by the EU and other governments. The situation isn't great, but maybe it can get better, and it's worth at least trying to come to some kind of truce.

      Some way we can continue to enjoy Slashdot.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:You mean... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      What would you suggest for a site like Slashdot?

      I wish they would fix subscriptions, but I don't think they would be enough to run the site.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:You mean... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The best ads are independent reviews of products. I read tech news sites which tell me about new products and review them. If multiple reviewers that I think are reasonably objective bring it to my attention and say it's good, I'll consider it.

      The problem for marketing departments is that their products are often total crap. Junk that only sells if they can trick you into buying it somehow. Thus they need advertising to either con you or make you want the new shiny. And I'm gonna block that rubbish.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:You mean... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      A micropayment system would be great, but the transaction cost is always too high. Even with virtual currencies like Bitcoin the transaction fees make very small payments impractical.

      Maybe we could pay with work done. Have some kind of client in the browser that mines cryptocurrency for a pool which is distributed to participating sites. Mining only happens when you are browsing participating sites. That has issues though, like what constitutes "browsing" and what crypto coin is easy enough to mine that phones can do it without a big battery life hit and yet people can't GPU mine the hell out of it to get rich.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Thanks but no thanks by fred6666 · · Score: 2

    I'll stick to ublock. Which means using Firefox because Chrome for Android doesn't support it.

    1. Re:Thanks but no thanks by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      Brave is Chrome for Android with a real ad blocker built in. Firefox has issues that hurt it in Android(comparative battery drain, zoomed out touch recognition, etc)

  3. Opera Browser by darkain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Opera Browser - practically the same thing as Chrome, but has a full featured built in ad-blocker already AND VPN client. Google is just now playing catch-up.

  4. An interesting development by dirk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This will be a big test for all those people who claim to block ads because they have gotten so bad. Yes, this will let google's ads through, as well as other well behaving ads. This is what many people claim they have wanted for a long time. Now that they have it, will they actually allow these ads through? I will happily jump on this train simply because there are too many problems with the other adblockers. There are too many time things won't load or play because the ads are blocked that I welcome a way to block only the unruly ads and let the others through. Plus, I have always felt bad about blocking ads on sites I like since I know it is a revenue source for them. But if this really works like they claim it does, it will be an easy way to stop the bad ads and leave the rest, which is really what I think people should be striving for. But I have a feeling people will block all the ads and say screw the sites.

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    1. Re:An interesting development by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no such thing as "well behaving ads". At the very least, they cost my bandwidth. If I am interested in your products, I will go and search for them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:An interesting development by erapert · · Score: 2

      Precisely.
      Google just needs to limbo under the lazyness bar such that users aren't annoyed enough to block all ads.

    3. Re:An interesting development by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Your bandwidth is enormous and ads which aren't enormous don't cost it significantly. Some of these things are 30kB images or even text ads.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    4. Re:An interesting development by Zxern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I block ads because they're malware vectors and not worth the risk. How obtrusive they aren't doesn't really matter anymore. Until they actually look over the code of all ads before they offer them up, I'm not going to allow them.

    5. Re:An interesting development by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is no such thing as "well behaving ads". At the very least, they cost my bandwidth. If I am interested in your products, I will go and search for them.

      There is no such thing as "free content." At the very least, content costs their bandwidth. If they were interested in serving you content without ads, they would offer a subscription (that you wouldn't pay for).

      It's a two-way street.

    6. Re:An interesting development by mapkinase · · Score: 2

      >This will be a big test for all those people who claim to block ads because they have gotten so bad

      These stupid, stupid, stupid people. ALL ads are bad, without any exception. It's junk, it's propaganda. Kill advertisement industry with fire. I do not care if this will be a radical economical revolution.

      A person has a right not to be harassed. Period. That includes ads.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:An interesting development by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This will be a big test for all those people who claim to block ads because they have gotten so bad

      No, it won't, because it does nothing about the worst abuse that ads engage in: tracking.

    8. Re:An interesting development by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      Strawman argument.

      You still see the ads when you mute or fast forward. The ads are still displayed as you wander off to do something else, and you also risk missing the return of the program.

      Likewise, as the technology catches up and advertising adapts you'll get advertising one way or another, or be restricted to paid content. In-line ads and anti-adblockers are just the start.

    9. Re:An interesting development by ChatHuant · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as "free content." At the very least, content costs their bandwidth. If they were interested in serving you content without ads, they would offer a subscription (that you wouldn't pay for).

      First, it's not my obligation to support their flawed business model. If their content was interesting enough, I'd pay for a subscription. And I have no sympathy for complaints about the cost of bandwidth either, when it's 99% the web developer's fault. A simple page on a news site may have one or two kilobytes of useful text; however, it downloads megabytes of unnecessary frameworks, scripts, CSS, images, videos, and kitchen sinks. Lazy or incompetent coders cost the content provider, but I don't see why it's my problem.

      Second, I believe your argument boils down to an implicit contract that exists between me and a web site, where the site provides some content, and I pay for it by viewing some ads. But ad networks (and therefore the websites showing the ads) are abusing the implicit contract: instead of limiting themselves to showing ads, they double dip by tracking me over multiple sites, logging any and all of my data they can get their grubby hands on, and selling it to all and sundry. This was certainly not part of my understanding of the implicit contract. So, sorry, I'm not buying into your argument (and not allowing any ads either).

  5. Feels kinda dodgy by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    Doesn't this border on Anti-Trust? Maybe not since it's not like Google's the only game in town.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  6. EU lawsuit in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously. How could this NOT lead to a lawsuit? Blocking the competition is something that is frowned upon, no matter the intentions.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  7. I'd be happier with no auto-play video by yorgasor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The worst thing about using Chrome is the inability to disable HTML5 video autoplay. It's either ads that start running automatically, or videos that they stick to the top of every !@#$ news story on CNN. I've been using Chrome from its early days, but I'm honestly starting grow weary from videos that just play all the time. Yes, there are add-ons that supposedly block them. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. But if software won't let the user be in control of what's displayed on his computer, it's really time for that software to go.

    --
    Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    1. Re:I'd be happier with no auto-play video by dugancent · · Score: 3, Informative

      Safari in the next version of macOS will block all autoplay videos unless you whitelist the site. I tested the beta and it seems to work well; CNN being the biggest offender.

      https://www.cnet.com/news/wwdc...

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
  8. The market at work by erapert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Other browsers (i.e. Opera) feature built-in ad blockers just like this. Chrome must compete. They're doing pretty well, having captured the majority of the market, but one does not stay in the lead by standing still.

    Also, by making this feature optional and culling the most obnoxious and egregious ads Google alleviates some of the friction from their users. Most slashdotters are probably already using an ad blocker and blocking all ads by default. I started using an ad blocker because of auto-playing video ads and other obnoxious time wasters that I kept running into.

    Ad blocker usage seems to be increasing. Building this feature into Chrome allows them to help control ad blocking-- block the most obnoxious stuff and make it all totally optional in order to help dissuade users from blocking all ads. Better some ads, thinks Google, than none.

    But let's say Google does block all ads. They still make their money because Chrome could just track everything the user does anyway and they could just sell that data instead of old fashioned "look look click click".

  9. Make ads STATIC! by p51d007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they would make ALL ads, 100% static, UNLESS you click on them (and I don't mean a mouse over), I would stop using ad blockers. This also goes with the stupid auto start videos, that wait 10-20 seconds to start automatically after you've scrolled down a page, then have to look around to find the bloody thing to turn it off. I whitelist /. because their ads are STATIC.

  10. Unobtrusive? Re:You mean... by rcharbon · · Score: 2

    Unobtrisive? You mean like "Taking up the first 3 results on any Search Results page? That 'unobtrusive'?

  11. Oxymoron by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3

    The new ad blocker inside Chrome won't block every ad you see on the web -- instead, it'll only block ads that are considered intrusive

    Um, that IS every ad.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.