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."
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."
We already have ad blockers that block ALL ads. All ads are disruptive by design.
Ads have no place on the internet.
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.
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?
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)?
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.
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.
Almost a monopoly, and their primary business model is ads... Or have they simply moved to just completely selling your data tracking.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was getting tired of Google's ads. Hopefully it will stop Google collecting information about me too.
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"
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"
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!
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.
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!
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.
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"
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.
So kinda like Opera, only years later and surely less effective (Google being an ad company).
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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