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.

8 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 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
    2. 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.
  2. 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 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.

  3. 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
  4. 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.