Slashdot Mirror


Chrome's Ad Blocker Will Go Global On July 9 (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from VentureBeat: Google today announced that Chrome's ad blocker is expanding across the globe starting on July 9, 2019. As with last year's initial ad blocker rollout, the date is not tied to a specific Chrome version. Chrome 76 is currently scheduled to arrive on May 30 and Chrome 77 is slated to launch on July 25, meaning Google will be expanding the scope of its browser's ad blocker server-side. Google last year joined the Coalition for Better Ads, a group that offers specific standards for how the industry should improve ads for consumers.

In February, Chrome started blocking ads (including those owned or served by Google) on websites that display non-compliant ads, as defined by the coalition. When a Chrome user navigates to a page, the browser's ad filter checks if that page belongs to a site that fails the Better Ads Standards. If so, network requests on the page are checked against a list of known ad-related URL patterns and any matches are blocked, preventing ads from displaying on the page. Because the Coalition for Better Ads announced this week that it is expanding its Better Ads Standards beyond North America and Europe to cover all countries, Google is doing the same. In six months, Chrome will stop showing all ads on sites in any country that repeatedly display "disruptive ads."

129 comments

  1. Not needed by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We already have ad blockers that block ALL ads. All ads are disruptive by design.

    1. Re:Not needed by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      On top of that, ad blocking being integrated into the browser was already done first by Opera... funny that Opera is still leading the pack even though its now merely a skin on top of chrome.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google last year joined the Coalition for Better Ads

      That makes as much sense as a Coalition for Better Nuclear Weapons, or Coalition for Better Malaria.

      a group that offers specific standards for how the industry should improve ads for consumers.

      Do those "standards" include websites not showing ads that originate from a network, or contain content, not under their control? Do those standards include websites being held liable for ads that deliver malware? No? Then fuck you.

      Ads used to just be annoying. Now they are a major vector for malware distribution, due to a combination of greed, laziness, incompetence, greed and greed.

      There is no such thing as a "good ad".

      Block everything.

    3. Re: Not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears you are using Google Chrome. Click here to see how advertisements support this website and why we cannot serve you the page you were looking for.

      Ten to one forbes is the first website to start encouraging users to move to a new browser.

    4. Re:Not needed by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2

      But you and I had to opt in to block them. This sounds like ALL Chrome users will benefit. Chrome has over 50% browser market share (thanks to Android) so this is huge.

    5. Re: Not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the last time I'd visit such a website then.

    6. Re:Not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the same Opera now owned by the Chinese government? Thanks, but I rather not swap one set of chains for another. Firefox with decent extensions is good enough.

    7. Re:Not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a choice. Ads or paywalls. Servers don't pay for themselves. Ads are cheaper than paying a ton of $10/month subscriptions.

      Some people consider ad blocking theft, because it deprives rightful content creators of revenue. Plus, you use the website, you agree to the terms. Don't like it, move on.

    8. Re:Not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy your paywalls.

    9. Re:Not needed by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Google is doing it purely for business reasons, they hate competition. If you see ads, they should be coming from Google, or at least paying Google, not some third party with no financial connection to them.

    10. Re:Not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people consider ad blocking theft,

      Their fantasies are of no relevance to the rest of us.

      Plus, you use the website, you agree to the terms.

      Maybe you do. I don't.

      Don't like it, move on.

      The website freely supplies content when I request it; it should get off the public internet if it wants to impose conditions on how it is displayed.

    11. Re:Not needed by thevirtualcat · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      PUNCH THE MONKEY TO WIN A CAR

      This is too little, too late. If this had been around

      *race car engine revs, tires screech*

      fifteen years ago when ads started getting

      FIND HOT GIRLS IN YOUR LOCAL AREA

      particularly invasive and annoying and ad companies

      PUNCH GEORGE W BUSH TO WIN PRIZES

      were participating in a race to the bottom, people

      YOU'VE WON! CLICK HERE TO CLAIM YOUR PRIZE!

      might be more sympathetic their plight.

      (Fake ads brought to you by the year 2004.)

    12. Re:Not needed by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I don't see how this is even "blocking ads," it is merely "blocking google's competitors."

      They're going to get sued for monopoly abuse in 12 countries for this.

    13. Re:Not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excepting things like Native Ads. I would ask you to stop posting without thinking, but it's been years. Howsabout you just stop posting.

    14. Re:Not needed by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      We already have ad blockers that block ALL ads

      We do? I use AdBlockPlus, and I still see a whole lot of ads! Sites are more and more learning how to get around the ad blockers.

    15. Re:Not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't want people accessing your shit for free, then why do you have it on a public facing site? It's like you're one of those entitled Eternal September retards who thinks it's fine to pollute my internet with your garbage ads.

  2. All ads are none compliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ads have no place on the internet.

    1. Re:All ads are none compliant by tepples · · Score: 3

      Ads have no place on the internet.

      How much have you donated to Slashdot to ensure its financial ability to continue to publish what you wrote? Would you prefer that your favorite sites all go behind a paywall? If not, I'd be interested to read about your third option to fund full-time operation of a website other than ads or paywalls.

    2. Re: All ads are none compliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have contributed nothing. I hope slashdot goes under.

      Mic drop

    3. Re: All ads are none compliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is owned by a USIC front company. They already have plenty of money. The ads are just a beard.

    4. Re: All ads are none compliant by Maelwryth · · Score: 2

      That is an interesting point of view. Sans ads and the marketing behind /. It would probably cost $40US a month to run. The rebuttal though is how much loss of wages per month (due to time and bandwidth) you incur on /. . (I admit this is a spurious comment with little research...ie bandwidth used by /. per month without images and ads and a guess at a $40 linode to host it)

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    5. Re:All ads are none compliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing and I never will. If Slashdot goes under, I'll simply go elsewhere.

      You seem to forget that the internet used to be a bunch of sites that were run by people with real jobs because they cared about it, not because they were trying to nickel and dime everyone for an undeserved paycheck.

    6. Re:All ads are none compliant by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that ads did make sense, back when they were a simple bar, or text based stuff. Then came the video ads, then the pop-ups, and so on. Now, one of the biggest infection vectors around is malvertising, with ad companies turning a blind eye to malicious code served through their networks because the delivery mechanism can be widespread and not hit an IP range twice in a close interval.

      Once ads became security issues, ad-blocking has become more vital than an AV program. I've even personally tested this (although the sample rate is too small.) One VM without an ad blocker, one VM without AV. The one with an ad blocker and no AV when shut down and offline, and scanned by autoruns was clean six months later after daily web browsing use. The one without an ad blocker was compromised with ransomware in less than ten minutes of viewing mainstream social media sites, and not clicking outside the site itself.

    7. Re:All ads are none compliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing and I never will. If Slashdot goes under, I'll simply go elsewhere.

      How much have you donated to "elsewhere" to ensure its financial ability to continue to publish what you wrote?

      You seem to forget that the internet used to be a bunch of sites that were run by people with real jobs because they cared about it, not because they were trying to nickel and dime everyone for an undeserved paycheck.

      You seem to forget that just having a site exist has costs, and those costs are higher the more traffic it gets.

    8. Re:All ads are none compliant by tepples · · Score: 1

      How much have you donated to Slashdot to ensure its financial ability to continue to publish what you wrote?

      Full disclosure: I used to subscribe to Slashdot. I don't nowadays because its subscribe button has been broken for years:

      Please Note: Buying or gifting of a new subscription is not available at the moment. We apologize for the inconvenience. This downtime though does not effect your current active subscription in any way. We will keep you posted on the latest

      SoylentNews, by contrast, still has a working subscribe button (and working Unicode).

    9. Re: All ads are none compliant by tepples · · Score: 1

      Sans ads and the marketing behind /. It would probably cost $40US a month to run.

      It's more than that. SoylentNews is a news aggregator site with a similar concept (and codebase) to Slashdot. Its statement of finances for the first and second quarters of 2017 shows $270 per month for the server and backups and a hefty chunk of change for tax payments and tax compliance costs.

  3. Good news by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can never have enough ad-blockers/tracking blockers running in your browser, as long as there is stull some memory left in your device to actually display the content you were trying to see.

    1. Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling this an "ad-blocker" is a misnomer on your part. It's an ad-filterer. No doubt someone will defeat their filtering and google will again serve malware right through to your desktop.

    2. Re:Good news by bobstreo · · Score: 2

      Calling this an "ad-blocker" is a misnomer on your part. It's an ad-filterer. No doubt someone will defeat their filtering and google will again serve malware right through to your desktop.

      It's built-in. If you want to compile your own browser (or use a fork like Chromium) feel free.

      Just because a browser offers protection, doesn't mean you can't add more, with access you can control which was exactly my point.

      It's like people using AdBlock Plus, not knowing ABP has "paid exceptions"
      "

    3. Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody said it wasn't built-in (although it isn't, yet) and that irrelevant point changes nothing about the above. It's NOT an adblocker. You can turn off ABP paid exceptions with a single click, it's trivial. Try that with google anything. Nope!

      You're trying to avoid the important part, that Google is not a trustworthy actor either in delivering ads or protecting users of their browser. Expecting this to supplant actual ad-blocking is for Google execs, and their derpy pawns.

    4. Re:Good news by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This ad-blocker allows so many ads through, that most people won't even notice they have blocking enabled.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. No sir, I don't trust you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And I don't want to see "compliant" ads either, fuck you, I'll continue blocking every single goddam ad/frame/beacon and you data thief schmucks can go have a shvitz in HELL, how bou dah?

    1. Re:No sir, I don't trust you. by tepples · · Score: 0

      fuck you, I'll continue blocking every single goddam ad

      I can think of one practical problem with your suggestion if it were to become widely adopted. It'd...

      Enjoying this preview? Subscribers to comments by tepples can read the entire comment. [ Subscribe ]
      Already a subscriber? [ Log In ]

    2. Re:No sir, I don't trust you. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      You do realize Slashdot clones exist that have no ads at all?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:No sir, I don't trust you. by tepples · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of SoylentNews. It has no ads, but the featured articles it links to have just as many ads as the featured articles that Slashdot links to.

    4. Re:No sir, I don't trust you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're clicking through to look at the articles?! Rookie mistake...

  5. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How does a corporation built on ads provide a platform to disable them? No, I didn't read TFA. Is this something about "bad" ads v "good" ads (as defined by Google)?

    1. Re:Question by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Easy, they disable their competitors ads...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Question by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is good ads/bad ads as defined by a "third party" that Google sits on the board of. And that info was in the summary, you didn't even need to read the article.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Question by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This part is odd for me. How is this not a monopolist leveraging their near-monopoly in desktop and android mobile browser markets to attack their competitors in advertising field which is their main money maker?

    4. Re: Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your question wilk be blocked in the next Chrome version. How dare you question Google!

    5. Re:Question by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Why do you think it isn't?

      Does that get punished before it happens, or after? What stage are current events at?

      Has this corporation received a major monopoly smack-down in the past? If not, why would they even have internal processes to protect against it?

  6. All ads are blocked except the ones from Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How isn't this abusing their monopoly power?
    It's obvious that they'll only block the ads that are not from Google, making every other ad-network go out of business.
    "Better Ads Standard" means "censor ads not by Google"

    1. Re:All ads are blocked except the ones from Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >In February, Chrome started blocking ads (including those owned or served by Google)

      troll harder my good binch

    2. Re:All ads are blocked except the ones from Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only a small token amount from google get blocked and those are only when the website itself is breaking the rules as google would "NEVER" host obnoxious Ad's. basically this is a cunt Act from google to try and undermine real Ad Blockers.

  7. Won't block YouTube ads. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    Google makes way too much money for something like this to block video ads on YouTube. I'm sure this is more of an effort to make it more difficult for people to identify which ad blocker they should use because there is no way this thing blocks YouTube ads.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Not blocking youtube ads would be a killer for tech enthusiasts, but I'm fair confident that many advertisements by google ad networks wont be blocked, not just youtubes.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      currently, there are still 'other means' in which to obtain most youtube content that don't require playing back content in a browser or an 'app'. not to say google isn't looking snuff them out.. it's just they haven't.. yet.. for most content.

    3. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. It blocks ads on pages that don't advertise like Google does.

      Basically, this is going to mean the end of auto-play ads with sound, and not much more.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only that, if it blocks Facebook and other competitive ad networks, but not doubleclick/google ads, it seems like that's very much in Google's interest.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by umafuckit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google makes way too much money for something like this to block video ads on YouTube. I'm sure this is more of an effort to make it more difficult for people to identify which ad blocker they should use because there is no way this thing blocks YouTube ads.

      It's an effort to push people away from using current blanket ad blockers by getting rid of the most annoying ads. If people follow through they will start to see more ads from Google as they will get rid of their ad blocker. I'm sure that's the thinking, anyway.

    6. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Merk42 · · Score: 2

      In February, Chrome started blocking ads (including those owned or served by Google)

    7. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google makes way too much money for something like this to block video ads on YouTube. I'm sure this is more of an effort to make it more difficult for people to identify which ad blocker they should use because there is no way this thing blocks YouTube ads.

      It's an effort to push people away from using current blanket ad blockers by getting rid of the most annoying ads. If people follow through they will start to see more ads from Google as they will get rid of their ad blocker. I'm sure that's the thinking, anyway.

      Probably hoping to prevent the ad blockers from getting new users as opposed to getting existing ad block users to stop.

    8. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Yes, if they violate Google's "good ad" policy. (Technically 3rd party, but they're on the board.) Odds that Google's ads don't meet their own policy? I mean, sure it sounds neutral. But it's not.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, if they violate Google's "good ad" policy. (Technically 3rd party, but they're on the board.) Odds that Google's ads don't meet their own policy? I mean, sure it sounds neutral. But it's not.

      So you even know the policy is by a 3rd party but are being disingenuous anyway?
      The policy covers how the ad behaves, not who delivers it. Nothing in what makes an ad "good" is restricted to something only Google can make.

    10. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Goalpost shift. I said Google wasn't blocking its own ads (since its ads are going to comply with the behavior it prescribes.) That is, all Google ads are shown. You then went on a tangent about how non-Google ads may also be shown.

      That said, maybe it was an accident. A lot of people get "All X are Y" and "Only X are Y" confused.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    11. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      You're heavily implying that the reason Google wouldn't be blocking their own ads is some anticompetitive thing and not just that the ads followed the standards. If you didn't mean to imply it, why did you say "I mean, sure it sounds neutral. But it's not."

    12. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm implying, and stating outright, that this is an anticompetive move by Google. The "acceptable ads" (which are not really determined by a third-party, because they're on that board) specifically exclude the most profitable ad types that Facebook and Amazon use. Sure it's "neutral", but it isn't. It allows what Google has been tuned for.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    13. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google controls that 3rd party, basically google gets to decide what a good ad is and how it behaves. Surprise Surprise sites that use googles policies will find no google ads are ever blocked.

    14. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The standard is written mostly by GOOGLE. Of course it fucking ensures their main revenue making ads are not blocked, in fact it is right there is the fucking summary. This is NOT a neutral standard, It is a standard that protects google.

    15. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Cool, except as pointed out earlier, some of GOOGLES OWN ADS ARE BLOCKED. Also the standards were created before Google was even on the board. I'm sure Google weren't even on the board at all you'd have some "Follow The Money" conspiracy lined up anyway.

    16. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I like your all caps, but there's actually no evidence Google's own ads were ever blocked. Google's ads aren't immune. There's a big fucking difference. That is, Google blocked all their ads that don't line up, all 0%. I

      And Google was also involved in talks with the organization in the beginning. The standards group was founded at a pro-advertisers conference (and covered here on /.)

      Or show me a single example of an ad served by Google being blocked.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    17. Re:Won't block YouTube ads. by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      OK so this whole thing came from something in TFS that you're just choosing to believe is wrong. It all makes sense now.

  8. bad sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some sites the rely on bad ads will go under. These sites rely on bad ads, but still have needed content (like adult sites).

  9. A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I use an ad blocker mostly as a security measure and it really is the shit shady semi-criminal ad networks that are responsible for most malware. Not saying the 'legit' networks are perfect and they can do a lot more to enforce their own networks.

    This isn't perfect and I don't plant to use it, but for unskilled users this can potentially cut down on a lot of malware/scams and that's a good thing.

  10. Conflict of interest? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 2

    Almost a monopoly, and their primary business model is ads... Or have they simply moved to just completely selling your data tracking.

    1. Re:Conflict of interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't be blocking their ads

    2. Re: Conflict of interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The large majority of Big Brother Google's revenue comes from selling mass surveillance data to oppressive governments and parastate megacorps. The ads are just there to fool the gullible.

    3. Re:Conflict of interest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except is says they are, even in TFS.

  11. Can we turn it off? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I want to keep using a 3rd party extension with the important feature of NOT BEING INSTALLED BY DEFAULT

    Simple.... Whatever Ad-Blocker is installed by default will be the ad-blocker that all the websites that want to show Ads spend their efforts detecting and making workarounds for.... workarounds like annoying prompts requiring you to "Whitelist" before being allowed to see the content referenced by the search link you clicked on.

    1. Re:Can we turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Only a moron would trust google to do this properly and protect their users, that ship has sailed.

    2. Re:Can we turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "If you like your ad blocker, you can keep your ad blocker."

      There's no actual cost to "not using Chrome at all", if they piss you off too much.

    3. Re:Can we turn it off? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      I want to keep using a 3rd party extension with the important feature of NOT BEING INSTALLED BY DEFAULT

      Simple.... Whatever Ad-Blocker is installed by default will be the ad-blocker that all the websites that want to show Ads spend their efforts detecting and making workarounds for.... workarounds like annoying prompts requiring you to "Whitelist" before being allowed to see the content referenced by the search link you clicked on.

      The point is that this ad blocker will let through all compliant ads. So the scenario you're worrying about likely isn't going to happen. It will be easier for people to make their ads compliant rather than trying to find ways around Google's ad blocker. That's the whole idea: to make ads less annoying so fewer people install blanket ad blockers.

    4. Re:Can we turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, this is all a method to prevent ad-blockers from damaging their revenue stream any more.

      If it happens to hurt competing ad-networks, all the better.

    5. Re:Can we turn it off? by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      Simple fix: use Firefox

    6. Re:Can we turn it off? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The point is that this ad blocker will let through all compliant ads. So the scenario you're worrying about likely isn't going to happen.

      Well... how the feature is explained it will block ALL ads, even Ads by Google, On websites that display ANY non-compliant ads.

      I'm personally not 100% sure what a "Compliant ad" is, But this causes a few concerns.... (1) Does Google really agree with us on how much and what kind of ad placement would be "OK" ? (2) Does this include any feature where a 3rd party may be technically capable of injecting Javascript, if they wanted, or if the 3rd party's server were compromised? Malware risk reduction is a major reason I run blockers --- "Promiscuous" code injection opportunities from unrelated 3rd parties are a huge risk. (3) What about websites that USUALLY display compliant ads.... It just takes a one-off non-compliant ad getting through one time to launch a script, right?

    7. Re:Can we turn it off? by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      I'm personally not 100% sure what a "Compliant ad" is...

      Helpful examples of what is considered NOT compliant.

    8. Re:Can we turn it off? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      I agree: I wouldn't trust Google and will continue running my current ad blocker. I suspect people who don't run an ad blocker (less techy?) might like this new blocker.

  12. Re: I beat you to it LONG ago Google... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hosts-based blacklists have been proven ineffectice, no matter how much you lie and say otherwise. Your software cannot be trusted because your audits are not backed by evidence of reproducible builds. You refuse to provide evidence that trolls have threatened to create malicious imitations of your software, suggesting your stated reasons for not releasing your source are lies. You act as if you have something to hide and that your software contains malicious code. You also refuse to digitally sign your binaries, again making up absurd reasons about keys being stolen. Trusting a spammer like you with the security of my computer systems is like trusting a car thief to prevent my car from being stolen. Come back when you've actually done something useful.

  13. Standards ban eight ad formats by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do those "standards" include websites not showing ads that originate from a network, or contain content, not under their control?

    No. The standards ban eight distinct ad formats deemed unacceptably annoying in tests:

    - pop-ups (other than exit intent pop-ups)
    - autoplaying audio (other than preroll before relevant video)
    - vertical ad density over 30 percent of article space
    - sticky ad taller than 30 percent of the scrolling area
    - prestitials (with countdown on desktop or at all on mobile)
    - postitials with countdown
    - animated ads that include flashing elements
    - screen-height ads that appear as a float rather than inline, thereby pausing scrolling of the article behind it (a format that I haven't personally seen in the wild)

    They do not discern whether the ads are served by the publisher or by a third party, nor whether serving them relies on surveiling the viewing habits of each visitor across numerous unrelated websites in order to infer each visitor's interests.

    Currently, the standards page includes a pile of 404 errors with -archived-0 in URLs, but the links from the research page still work.

  14. Re: Joogle thieves & hypocrites... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here's APK proving yet again that he's a racist. Google's malicious tracking and advertising do not justify your blatant anti-semitism. You attack others because you know your life is worthless and you've never done a single useful thing in your life. There's a trail online of your abusive behavior, harassing ArsTechnica users and people like Thor Schrock. Now you've turned to threatening to flood Slashdot with spam and take it offline. As usual, your threats are empty, because you would have done so already if you were capable. You're more interested in stalking and harassing Logan Abbott because you're jealous of him. You even turned to making personal attacks toward Ray Morris a few days ago, despite that he's been kinder and far more tolerant of your belligerent behavior than most have here. You're also dishonest, frequently posting and pretending to be someone else l, usually for the purpose of posting anti-semitic spam or posting personal attacks when you've been proved wrong about something. Go away. No one wants you here, asshole. No one wants your worthless software, either.

  15. How YouTube ads don't fail the standards by tepples · · Score: 1

    Preroll ads before "video content that is relevant to the content of the page itself" are not one of the eight ad formats that the Better Ads Standards ban. The ban on autoplaying audio explicitly does not ban preroll ads.

  16. Re: Never trust JEWGLE. Here is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fuck up, Alexander Peter Kowalski. When you die, I'm going to find out where you're buried. I'm going to throw a party, celebrate, and dance on your grave. I'll be celebrating that you can no longer harass others like the useless piece of shit that you are. Fuck you.

  17. Re: Joogle thieves & hypocrites... apk by tepples · · Score: 2

    All I see is an impostor joe-jobbing APK with a racist diatribe.

    But the Better Ads Standards don't cover the content of ads. The Standards cover only ad formats. This means that as I understand it, Chrome won't block antisemitic ads unless they're pop-ups or something similar.

  18. Re: Joogle thieves & hypocrites... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no bigger racist thieves banished nation to nation thruout time as JEWS and Joogle = jews https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... and everyone knows apk beat arstechnica down soundly and Thor Schrock too.

  19. Great, this should kill those Google ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was getting tired of Google's ads. Hopefully it will stop Google collecting information about me too.

  20. Re: Joogle thieves & hypocrites... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ray Morris, you mean the nazi propagandist? That Ray Morris, the one who got corrected and doubled and tripled down on white supremacist bullshit claims, as if his dick wasn't tiny enough by itself, that Ray Morris, the faggot traitor?

    Nazi homosexual recruiter RAY MORRIS pushing debunked Nazi propaganda even after corrected, #ROPE

  21. Ads are allowed by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    the good approved encrypted trusted ads get allowed.
    The bad third party ads get banned.

    Always use a trusted ad blocker that's not made by an ad company.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Ads are allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always use a trusted ad blocker that's not made by an ad company.

      Such as Adguard.

    2. Re:Ads are allowed by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      An ad company that offers a free secure browser will always see its own ads as trusted content :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  22. Re:I beat you to it LONG ago Google... apk by Pikoro · · Score: 1

    Wow, you really are delusional. You think the apk file extension was a copy of your initials?

    I think you forgot to take your meds again Andy

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  23. Fact from me & a QUESTION... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do YOU like the Rolling Stones? Hope so, cuz "Time, is on MY side (yes it is)" per https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (time like I was BORN w/ APK as my initials (way before there WAS a Google, fool - FACT & I wrote programs under that set of initials BEFORE Google existed too...)).

    * You're worse than delusional - you're dumb!

    (I'm taking a listen to Mr. Jagger SMOKE YOU, lol - while sipping my FAV 'beverage', a Miller Hi-Life (good stuff)).

    APK

    P.S.=> This TIRED "meds" bullshit of yours only PROJECTS you're the "medhead" dummy - only thing is, those chemicals have BLUNTED your already LIMITED intelligence even more so you don't realize it's lame (stale shit like yours, is)... apk

  24. Re:Standing behind your words UNIDENTIFIABLE ac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "THERE IS NO BIGGER SPAMMER than /.'s PRIMARY purse-string puller JOOgle"

    Alexander P Kowalski, the racist homophobic fuck, everyone.

  25. "I'm still in Hollywood"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & this tune (specifically this line from it for you "& the troll on the corner?" part https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) - you've got EVERYTHING to LOSE, Joogz (& you KNOW it, lol). Especially vs. me annihilating you easily (too easily & do NOT make me HAVE to say it (It's tradition)).

    * :)

    Man! I'm drinking a beer & nearly spit up what I had to drink after seeing your WEAK "FruStRaTeD" clearly "RaGiNg" little "ReAcTioN" there - thanks! Can't PAY for better amusement than "your kind" & YOU, hehehe).

    APK

    P.S.=> It was a pleasure TEARING YOU UP easily as always here (lmao) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... & facts aren't "RACIS" (they're FACT you can't defeat w/ your bs) & homophobic? No, wrong but you PROJECT issues w/ your own DOUBTLESS homosexuality you clearly feel 'wrong' about (sodomite does anal sex produce offspring? Let us know, ok?? LMAO)... apk

  26. Is YouTube non compliant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you watch a music playlist on YouTube and these days you listen to a 3 minute song followed by a 45 minute advert. Great when you're in the shower or excercising. Stopped using the app now in favour of an ad blocked browser.

  27. Ads have a place by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

    Sometimes, I'm looking for a product to buy. There's a lot of research I have to do to eliminate unsuitable brands, but there are several left. But at that point I'm pretty much asking to be advertised to.

    The issue is normally it's a crappy brand I've eliminated that advertises to me.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  28. An entirely logical move by google by guacamole · · Score: 1

    After google quite heavy-handedly banned the use of system-wide adblockers on Android a few years ago, not being able to filter ads at browser level was probably the primary reason why many long-time Chrome users started switching to Firefox as well as other web browsers which supported adblocking internally. There was a real chance of Chrome losing market share to this. Hence, they introduce now an "adblocker lite" in Chrome hoping to stop losing more Chrome users.

  29. Google can't be trusted by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    It's time for President Trump to get out his trust-busting stick. Break up Alphabet!

    Android - separate company
    Chrome - separate company
    YouTube - separate company
    Gmail - separate company
    Search - separate company
    Advertising - separate company
    Maps - separate company

    Shut down the dangerous mad science projects. Shut down the wannabe-Skynet AI. Arrest the mad scientists and the executives that backed them.

    Break up Alphabet now! Stop Google before it's too late!

    1. Re:Google can't be trusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too many people worship Google (Or Alphabet or whatever they want to be called) as a god. You're up against religious fanaticism by people that would say they were atheists.

    2. Re:Google can't be trusted by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      False prophets of religion have been replaced with false profits of capitalism. :-/

  30. LD_PRELOAD module on the making by RuiFRibeiro · · Score: 1

    Cool, now we just need to reverse engineer how the checks are made, and write an LD_PRELOAD to convince chrome all the pages do not comply.

  31. Better summary by gravewax · · Score: 1

    Perhaps a better summary. "In desperation to save their revenue stream, google tries to foist a dodgy Ad Blocker that lets them continue to display Ads"

  32. so ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They run AdSense the biggest ad network and now they are deoyong a global ad bloc king program. You've got a peace sign on your shirt and born to kill on you helmet, is that a sick joke?

    1. Re:so ... by gravewax · · Score: 1

      The Peace sign allows you to fool people into a false sense of security so you can really drive the knife in right to the hilt.

  33. So kinda like Opera, only years later and surely less effective (Google being an ad company).

  34. Home Internet with only hobby sites by tepples · · Score: 1

    As you point out, the Internet used to consist of sites run as a hobby. It also used to be exclusive to universities. If the Internet were to shrink to again consist of sites run as a hobby, would those sites alone cause enough demand to justify upkeep of the infrastructure for high-speed access at home?

    1. Re:Home Internet with only hobby sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People will be using it to watch TV and porn.

    2. Re:Home Internet with only hobby sites by tepples · · Score: 1

      If Internet ads were banned, legal TV would fall squarely into the paywall category, as would erotic paysites. The U.S. has already started to see multichannel subscription IPTV services such as Sling and DirecTV Now. As for illegal TV, ISPs aren't allowed to mention that in advertising. MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

  35. Once most search results are from shunned sites by tepples · · Score: 1

    Let's say that displaying an anti-adblock notice is "the last time I'd visit such a website". In that case, good luck using the web after the majority of results for a given search query end up being from sites that you have vowed to no longer visit.

  36. Anti-Trust violation? by RalphSlate · · Score: 1

    How is this not an anti-trust violation?

    Google, a behemoth company, is using their dominance by blocking ads on third-party sites using the browser that they control, a browser that has 65% market share. The demand for advertising won't go away - it will just shift to Google Text Ads, meaning that publishers will have even fewer scraps to feed on.

    Given how shoddy that "Coalition for Better Ads" site is (404s on what should be their main content pages), I wonder if they are just a front organization for Google itself?

    1. Re:Anti-Trust violation? by tepples · · Score: 1

      The Better Ads Standards ban eight ad formats. Any publisher or adtech provider can avoid this ad blocker by not running ads in those formats. Compared to the analogous Acceptable Ads program that Eyeo runs, the Better Ads Standards are far more lenient (allowing inline ads between the start and end of an article) and do not require the publisher to pay to whitelist a site. The reason AdSense ads don't get blocked isn't that it's run by Google but that AdWords doesn't sell ad space in those formats to advertisers in the first place.

    2. Re:Anti-Trust violation? by RalphSlate · · Score: 1

      Not everything it bans are "formats". I would call these "formats" (which means a publisher can avoid them by not placing their code on the site):

      - pop-ups (other than exit intent pop-ups)
      - prestitials (with countdown on desktop or at all on mobile)
      - postitials with countdown
      - screen-height ads that appear as a float rather than inline, thereby pausing scrolling of the article behind it (a format that I haven't personally seen in the wild)

      These two are ad characteristics that cannot be directly controlled by the publisher via the placement of code:

      - autoplaying audio (other than preroll before relevant video)
      - animated ads that include flashing elements

      As a publisher myself, I don't want to show such ads, but first, there is no option in a network that says "don't show animated ads with flashing elements", and second, although I can (and do) say no to autoplaying audio, such ads still slip into the ad stream by advertisers who, for lack of a better word, cheat.

      These next two are a lot more nebulous. I don't know how "30%" is computed, or what it even means, though I did find something on their site that suggest these are for mobile browsers:

      - sticky ad taller than 30 percent of the scrolling area. Their picture of this one makes sense, it's basically when the top or bottom of the mobile screen is taken over by a fixed ad.

      This one is less clear:

      - vertical ad density over 30 percent of article space. This says "Ads that take up more than 30% of the vertical height of a page. Ad density is determined by summing the heights of all ads within the main content portion of a mobile page, then dividing by the total height of the main content portion of the page.". That's a little scary, as a publisher, because not only is that confusing to understand, it seems easy to break that rule inadvertently, for example, with a page that has less content than normal. Plus "Main content portion" is subjective, and some algorithm could whack you on that.

      What is scary here is that there is no appeal process, and the ban appears to be absolute. From the OP:

      Chrome will stop showing *all ads* on sites in any country that *repeatedly* display "disruptive ads."

      How is "repeatedly" determined?

      To me, this is just another case of a tech company being "governmental", in an autocratic way. They don't use people to make the determinations, it's all algorithm-based. Don't like the laws? Your only option is exile.

    3. Re:Anti-Trust violation? by tepples · · Score: 1

      These two are ad characteristics that cannot be directly controlled by the publisher via the placement of code:

      - autoplaying audio (other than preroll before relevant video)

      <video autoplay muted>

      - animated ads that include flashing elements

      If the publisher can approve or veto creative before it appears on the site, the publisher can veto creative incorporating flashing. If the publisher cannot approve or veto creative before it appears on the site, the publisher can switch to a different ad network or exchange, switch to publisher-hosted ad delivery without any network or exchange, or not use video as a format.

      As a publisher myself, I don't want to show such ads, but first, there is no option in a network that says "don't show animated ads with flashing elements"

      You could drop animated ads altogether. If your network doesn't allow that, you could drop your network and sell your ad space through a form on your site. A sponsor interested in your site could upload creative for approval and purchase page views. Then you could approve or reject the creative. See for example how ads work on Daring Fireball.

      Plus "Main content portion" is subjective, and some algorithm could whack you on that.

      Acceptable Ads criteria define "primary content" in terms of how HTML5 expects the <main> element to be used. In this respect, Better Ads Standards are more lenient than Acceptable Ads criteria, which require inline ads to take up zero percent of primary content.

      it seems easy to break that rule inadvertently, for example, with a page that has less content than normal.

      Then the ad serving script needs to measure the body of each article before ads are inserted into that article.

      What is scary here is that there is no appeal process

      Any webmaster who successfully claims control of a site in Google Search Console can clean up ads on that site and submit a request to have that site reevaluated.

    4. Re:Anti-Trust violation? by RalphSlate · · Score: 1

      > If the publisher can approve or veto creative before it appears on the site, the publisher can veto creative incorporating flashing. If the publisher cannot approve or veto creative before it appears on the site, the publisher can switch to a different ad network or exchange, switch to publisher-hosted ad delivery without any network or exchange, or not use video as a format.

      Online advertising no longer works like that. It is all programmatic. No publisher personally approves programmatic creatives, there are too many of them and advertisers can change them too rapidly. The best you can do is choose categories which Ad Exchanges (primarily Google, with some other players) give you. And even then, advertisers will cheat - they will put through inappropriate creatives when they can. I couldn't find anything in Google's DFP (most popular ad serving tool) that says "don't show flashing animation".

      No one sells ads directly on their sites to advertisers, that is not a viable model because advertisers want to get their message out to a variety of sites instead of "sponsoring" one or more pages on a single site. If you're not using programmatic advertising these days, you are leaving most advertising dollars on the table. In fact, most advertisers don't care about the sites they advertise on (there are, of course, exceptions) - they are ultimately trying to reach the users, so if they know a user is potentially interested in going to St. Kitt's (because they searched for that island), they want to show that person St. Kitt's ads whether they are on a travel site or on a cooking site.

      Believe me when I tell you that I have things set to block autoplay audio ads, but I find them on my site from time-to-time. The ad serving is so complex that it becomes very hard to trace their origin. There will always be sleazy advertisers out there, looking to game the system. This is the same industry that spawns robo-calls.

      Thanks for the tip on the "main" HTML element, I wasn't aware of that one. It's troublesome that this relatively obscure and non-functional HTML element is used to make decisions though. It reminds me of when Google introduced the "nofollow" tag, and then penalized sites which didn't use it.

      > Any webmaster who successfully claims control of a site in Google Search Console can clean up ads on that site and submit a request to have that site reevaluated.

      I can speak with direct experience of being on the wrong end of a Google algorithm bug. It's nowhere near as easy as you state. My site was penalized in Google for about 6 months. It was a clear "-10" penalty - my content was being put onto page 2 where it was behind irrelevant results. Then, all of a sudden, the penalty was lifted. I never got an explanation why.

      Google does not have "customer service", there is no one who can say "here's the problem, you have to fix these things". At best you can post a question in one of their forums, and then weather the abuse you are sure to receive.

      I did manage to attract the attention of a Google employee on the forums. Do you know what his advice was? "Make your site the best it can possibly be, don't worry about its rankings". I couldn't call my congressman, I couldn't appeal to the courts. I had to deal with it, because, as dozens of wannabe trolls pointed out, "Google doesn't have to include you in their results if they don't want to".

      Google and other large tech companies have more power than governments, with almost zero ability for individuals to influence them. Increasingly, decisions are made by algorithms with no ability for exceptions.

      Let me give you one more example. My employer uses filtering software, and blocks several obvious categories - porn, gambling, etc. The classification of websites is done by a vendor, and the vendor classification is used by a lot of companies. What happens when that vendor misclassifies your website? The only thing you can hope for is to get in contact with that vendor and beg them to change the classification. There a

  37. Tracking protection installed by default in Fx by tepples · · Score: 1

    Whatever Ad-Blocker is installed by default will be the ad-blocker that all the websites that want to show Ads spend their efforts detecting and making workarounds for

    The Mozilla Firefox web browser is installed by default on most GNU/Linux distributions and available for Windows, macOS, and Android. Private Browsing is installed by default (but not enabled by default) in Firefox. Private Browsing includes a "tracking protection" feature that causes Firefox not to connect to servers involved in large-scale surveillance of viewers' browsing habits across multiple websites to gather interest data and "retarget" viewers.

    Sites could work around tracking protection by falling back to different ads that do not stalk the user, particularly ads hosted by the website operator such as those seen on Daring Fireball and Read the Docs. But they don't. Instead, sites using Google's Funding Choices, Admiral's Engage, and the like require users of Private Browsing to click "Disable protection for this site". They do this because the cost per thousand impressions (CPM) of interest-based advertising is three times the CPM from contextual advertising alone.

  38. Right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An ad-blocker designed and implemented by an ad company will get you exactly what you'd expect.

    "Non-compliant ads" had me laughing out loud. Who gets to define the compliance criteria?

  39. Standing behind your words UNIDENTIFIABLE ac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Signing's been STOLEN & ABUSED https://www.helpnetsecurity.co...

    I use a method OF MY OWN DESIGN that can't be stupid https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

    Joogle's Chrome CODE WAS STOLEN (lookup EFast folks) - mine won't be, I don't release it BECAUSE of that.

    I've had my code (that exists + works great vs. YOUR HOTAIR BULLSHIT) audited by 1 of the best (Malwarebytes' Steven Burn).

    SPAMMER?

    THERE IS NO BIGGER SPAMMER than /.'s PRIMARY purse-string puller JOOgle, fool, lol... eat shit.

    Should I also post DOZENS of /.ers who DISAGREE w/ you on hosts efficacy vs. malware/trackers/ads etc. too?

    How about SECURITY PROS GALORE seconding them too??

    Ask & PREPARE to "EAT YOUR WORDS", weezil...

    * What is it LIKE being a SLINKING skulking WORM (that's obviously AFRAID of me & perhaps more, what I represent (someone doing things to STOP scumbags like Google))?

    APK

    P.S.=> You're SCARED SHITLESS of me & everyone KNOWS it - you HIDING behind UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts PROVES IT FOR ME (thank you)... apk

  40. I beat you to it LONG ago Google... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMITATION = the SINCEREST form of FLATTERY (like you stole my initials APK) & "Sometimes, people deserve to have their FAITH REWARDED" per https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

    Host-domain use IS down & I can't HELP but think what I did helped that per https://unit42.paloaltonetwork...

    (MY FAITH IS REWARDED by that ACT OF FAITH on my part)

    "He didn't do anything wrong" - Jamie Gordon "The Dark Knight"!

    APK

    P.S.=> For the best hosts file multiplatform:

    APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p (remove spaces between chars & download)

    APK Hosts File Engine 10++ SR-1 32/64-bit for Windows https://hosts-file.net/?s=Down... (DL link @ bottom)

    Soon for MacOS too (I just got a NEW Mac-Mini to port it there too)... apk

  41. Joogle thieves & hypocrites... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (APK) is still right a hosts file really does work. It even blocked a some of the video ads that were inserted into a stream OrangeTide February 10 2016

    * Held TRUE then & perhaps now too!

    (Unless JOOgle 'changed the rules' like they did PAYING OFF every browser maker to become an AD MACHINE (https my ass - it always gets BROKEN thru & you can BET law enforcement can bust thru that crap (SSL to TLS version whatever anyone?)).

    E.G. FireFox paid off by JOOgle & how to work around it? EASY:

    network.dnsCacheEntries 0
    network.trr.mode to 5 (SHUTS IT OFF)
    network.trr.uri (set to 208.67.222.222)
    extensions.pocket.enabled = FALSE

    APK

    P.S.=> JOOgle = thieves (like ALL THEIR KIND) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery just as they STOLE my initials too in APK) & they will NOT CUT OFF THEIR OWN ADS (hypocrites) - but I beat ANY BROWSER DOING IT by operating @ kernelmode speed level 1st LONG BEFORE browsers make requests... apk

  42. No personalized newspaper or magazine ads by tepples · · Score: 1

    Online advertising no longer works like that. It is all programmatic.

    By "programmatic" do you refer to it having become standard practice to run nonfree scripts on viewers' computers to perform large-scale surveillance of viewer's browsing history across multiple unrelated websites? If so, then perhaps online advertising needs to cease being programmatic in this way.

    I couldn't find anything in Google's DFP (most popular ad serving tool) that says "don't show flashing animation".

    Is there anything saying "report this ad for standards violations, such as inaccessibility to viewers with a seizure disorder"?

    No one sells ads directly on their sites to advertisers, that is not a viable model because advertisers want to get their message out to a variety of sites instead of "sponsoring" one or more pages on a single site.

    Publishers of newspapers and magazines never printed ads customized to each individual subscriber, and certainly not to readers who encounter a publication through a newsstand or public library. How did advertisers and publishers survive then?

    if they know a user is potentially interested in going to St. Kitt's (because they searched for that island), they want to show that person St. Kitt's ads whether they are on a travel site or on a cooking site.

    This is called "data leakage", allowing an advertiser to target high-value sites cheaply by advertising on low-value sites that the same viewer also visits. "Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful" by Don Marti and "WTF is data leakage?" by John McDermott describe problems with this race to the bottom.

    There will always be sleazy advertisers out there, looking to game the system.

    And you as a publisher are responsible for allowing these sleazy advertisers onto your site via these exchanges, whether or not you have meaningful control of what these exchanges serve. In fact, the lack of meaningful control ideally ought to be a reason not to use a particular exchange.

  43. Control by strikethree · · Score: 1

    Very nice. Google just gave themselves more leverage in dealing with advertisers. Big win for them.

    Oh wait! I got the wrong message.

    Google is so fucking awesome in how they think of the users of their browser. They block malicious ads for us! Thank you so much Google. You take care of us so well.

    Or it it back to what I first said and now Google has a mechanism to assure advertisers that a particular ad was definitely displayed so pay us more to show that ad.

    No no no. I must be a good person and thank Google for all the great stuff they do for us. I am a proper citizen. Please don't send the elimination squad for me.

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen