Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Friday April 21 2017, @04:45AM   Printer-friendly
from the turn-off-your-adblocker-to-see-this-content dept.

"According to people familiar with the company's plans:"

The ad-blocking feature, which could be switched on by default within Chrome, would filter out certain online ad types deemed to provide bad experiences for users as they move around the web.

[...] In one possible application Google is considering, it may choose to block all advertising that appears on sites with offending ads, instead of the individual offending ads themselves. In other words, site owners may be required to ensure all of their ads meet the standards, or could see all advertising across their sites blocked in Chrome.

Google declined to comment.

The ad-blocking step may seem counter-intuitive given Google's reliance on online advertising revenue, but the move is a defensive one, people familiar with the plans said.

Uptake of online ad blocking tools has grown rapidly in recent years, with 26% of U.S. users now employing the software on their desktop devices, according to some estimates.

Source: Google Plans Ad-Blocking Feature in Popular Chrome Browser


Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Friday April 21 2017, @05:06AM (10 children)

    by cubancigar11 (330) on Friday April 21 2017, @05:06AM (#497242) Homepage Journal

    I smell conflict of interest. The only way for another browser to compete is to have a better ad-blocking technology, which means Firefox is not going to get funded by any other advertisement company. Which means, as an end-user, we can say bye bye to all browsers except chrome, and as a business, we can say bye bye to all advertisement companies except Google?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @05:30AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @05:30AM (#497252)

    There are plenty of other browser options, you just have to be ok with them not working on all the latest and greatest websites.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Friday April 21 2017, @06:45AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday April 21 2017, @06:45AM (#497269) Journal

      Bring back the "Best viewed with any browser" campaign!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday April 21 2017, @06:51AM (2 children)

      by cubancigar11 (330) on Friday April 21 2017, @06:51AM (#497271) Homepage Journal

      The free browsers are running on funding money, which is what I was talking about - that their funding will slowly dry.

      About the latest and greatest websites, they all use same latest and greatest javascript framework that works on latest and greatest javascript engine and CSS support - both of which have their benchmarks set on chrome.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by julian on Friday April 21 2017, @03:22PM (1 child)

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 21 2017, @03:22PM (#497448)

        Mozilla has been squandering millions for years on dead end projects and useless "outreach". Maybe being forced to refocus and become a leaner, browser-focused, organization like they used to be will be good for them and for Firefox.

        • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Saturday April 22 2017, @09:35AM

          by cubancigar11 (330) on Saturday April 22 2017, @09:35AM (#497851) Homepage Journal

          So sad and so true. Mozilla got funded by Google to squander that money instead of doing something great, like making add-on system more like a market place. They had the opportunity to become Play Store before android came along and they just decided to spend it on changing UIs and breaking stuff.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 21 2017, @03:20PM (1 child)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 21 2017, @03:20PM (#497444)

      Considering the browser ecosystem seems to be converging on WebKit powering everything, one would hope not.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday April 22 2017, @05:04PM

        by toddestan (4982) on Saturday April 22 2017, @05:04PM (#497967)

        That's the scary part. Webkit is dominating, and while it is open, it's basically under the control of Google who has demonstrated that they can and will throw their weight around. What isn't Webkit is mostly Microsoft's closed-source browsers which only run on Windows. The only alternative to this is the Gecko browsers which is basically Firefox and its spinoffs which are becoming less and less relevant everyday. I fear that soon we'll back where we were 15 years ago with IE6 and Microsoft, only this time it will be Chrome and Google.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by darkfeline on Friday April 21 2017, @06:57AM (2 children)

    by darkfeline (1030) on Friday April 21 2017, @06:57AM (#497278) Homepage

    There's always wget.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @02:32PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @02:32PM (#497413)

      But wget won't help you if the "web page" consists mainly of JavaScript and if you're lucks a small notice "JavaScript is required to view this page".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @03:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21 2017, @03:10PM (#497435)

        I have a term for websites like that: broken. If you can't be bothered to put together a properly functioning website, I can't be bothered to try to figure out what WTF you're trying to do.

        Take your ECMAScript and shove it up your stdout.