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

← 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 Tuesday August 1, 2017 @04:00AM 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.

16 of 236 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

You mean... by TFlan91 · 2017-08-01 04:01 · 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 · 2017-08-01 04:10 · 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 AmiMoJo · 2017-08-01 04:14 · 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
3. Re:You mean... by Solandri · 2017-08-01 04:15 · 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.
4. Re:You mean... by Opportunist · 2017-08-01 04:25 · 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.
5. Re:You mean... by x_t0ken_407 · 2017-08-01 04:31 · 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.
6. Re:You mean... by apoc.famine · 2017-08-01 05:09 · 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
7. Re:You mean... by AmiMoJo · 2017-08-01 09:19 · 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
An interesting development by dirk · 2017-08-01 04:06 · 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 · 2017-08-01 04:27 · 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 Zxern · 2017-08-01 04:50 · 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.
3. Re:An interesting development by DRJlaw · 2017-08-01 05:06 · 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.
4. Re:An interesting development by JohnFen · 2017-08-01 07:14 · 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.
EU lawsuit in ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 by houghi · 2017-08-01 04:13 · 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.
I'd be happier with no auto-play video by yorgasor · 2017-08-01 04:26 · 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
Make ads STATIC! by p51d007 · 2017-08-01 04:34 · 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.