SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the that's-a-nice-ad-you-have-there dept.
Critics wary as Google's Chrome begins an ad crackdown
On Thursday, Google will begin using its Chrome browser to eradicate ads it deems annoying or otherwise detrimental to users. It just so happens that many of Google's own most lucrative ads will sail through its new filters. The move, which Google first floated back in June, is ostensibly aimed at making online advertising more tolerable by flagging sites that run annoying ads such as ones that auto-play video with sound. And it's using a big hammer: Chrome will start blocking all ads — including Google's own — on offending sites if they don't reform themselves.
There's some irony here, given that Google's aim is partly to convince people to turn off their own ad-blocking software. These popular browser add-ons deprive publishers (and Google) of revenue by preventing ads from displaying.
Google vice president Rahul Roy-Chowdhury wrote in a blog post that the company aims to keep the web healthy by "filtering out disruptive ad experiences."
But the company's motives and methods are both under attack. Along with Facebook, Google dominates the online-advertising market; together they accounted for over 63 percent of the $83 billion spent on U.S. digital ads last year, according to eMarketer. Google is also virtually synonymous with online search, and Chrome is the most popular browser on the web, with a roughly 60 percent market share. So to critics, Google's move looks less like a neighborhood cleanup than an assertion of dominance.
Is this Google's antitrust moment? (Is this a recycled comment?)
- Under the hood: How Chrome's ad filtering works
- The Initial Better Ads Standards
- Exclusive: Industry Experts On The Impact Of Google Chrome's Ad Blocker
Previously: Google Preparing to Filter "Unacceptable Ads" in 2018
Google Chrome to Begin Blocking "Non-Compliant Ads" on Feb. 15
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday February 15 2018, @09:30PM (6 children)
No, they don't - an alternative has been offered [democraticunderground.com].
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday February 17 2018, @03:24AM (5 children)
Once those who work in advertising technology commit mass suicide, prepare for many, perhaps the majority, of your favorite websites to go behind a paywall.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday February 19 2018, @11:18PM (4 children)
A _VERY_ small price to pay.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday March 14 2018, @04:05PM (3 children)
Say you visit 20 different websites. Would you want to pay $5.99 per site per month times 20 sites times 12 months per year = $1437.60 per year for access to websites?
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday March 16 2018, @04:27AM (2 children)
You really need to shop around a bit more for a provider.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday March 16 2018, @03:45PM (1 child)
A provider of what?
If you are referring to Internet service providers: I wasn't referring to ISPs that violate net neutrality.
If you are referring to providers of news and editorial articles: Their publishers own copyright in the articles that they publish and thus have the legal privilege to deny a license to their articles to any syndication service.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday March 17 2018, @02:29AM
Actually I was, because I misread your post :(
Sorry about that.
I was also suggesting that no website is worth $5.99 per month. Except that I just realised that that's about what I pay for Wikipedia. I blame the lack of coffee yesterday.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.