Google may build native ad-blocking into mobile & desktop versions of Chrome

Posted:
in General Discussion
Despite the company's own dependence on ads, Google is reportedly planning to build a native ad-blocker into the mobile and desktop versions of its Chrome browser -- presumably including Apple's iOS and macOS.




The feature could be switched on by default, but would only filter content that contravenes standards set by the industry Coalition for Better Ads, the Wall Street Journal said. These include the likes of pop-ups, auto-playing video ads with sound, and even so-called "prestitials" that prevent people from skipping through until a countdown ends.

Google is considering blocking all ads on websites with offending ones, the Journal's sources said. That would force sites to be more careful about what they allow for fear of cutting out significant revenue.

An announcement could be made within a matter of weeks, but Google is allegedly still cementing details and in a position to scrap the idea.

The feature is said to be an attempt to stall growth of third-party ad-blocking extensions, some of which block any and all ads, hurting Google's business and that of other companies as well. With a proliferation of adware and user-hostile ads, though, ad blockers have become necessary for some people to browse the Web in peace.

Google already pays Eyeo, the creator of Adblock Plus, to be part of an "Acceptable Ads" program.

Earlier this week it was revealed that Google is planning to fix a Punycode-based phishing vulnerability in Chrome. The problem is already solved in Apple's Safari browser, as well as Microsoft's Edge and Internet Explorer.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,340member
    I'm sure Googs will have exceptions for its ad network, implicitly or explicitly. 
    ericthehalfbeeDilirXwatto_cobratallest skil
  • Reply 2 of 26
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 15,920member
    jungmark said:
    I'm sure Googs will have exceptions for its ad network, implicitly or explicitly. 
    Probably a safe bet. As I've understood it from reading other sources the intent is blocking particularly irritating ads like pop-ups and interstitials or dozens on a single page. The mundane stuff like a couple of side-board ads isn't seen as particularly problematic. Completely dumping ads as a support mechanism for internet sites (like AI) would create more issues than folks are willing to deal with and simply not realistic.  
    edited April 20 jony0
  • Reply 3 of 26
    sog35sog35 Posts: 12,367member
    jungmark said:
    I'm sure Googs will have exceptions for its ad network, implicitly or explicitly. 
    yes. And charge an arm and a leg to get whitelisted.

    I support that. Any way to get less ads is good.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 4 of 26
    An advertising company blocking ads? Suuuuuurrrre.

    Blocking irritating ads. You mean like ads from COMPETING advertising networks, but not from Google?
    franco borgojSnivelydavenBluntpscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 26
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 15,920member
    An advertising company blocking ads? Suuuuuurrrre.

    Blocking irritating ads. You mean like ads from COMPETING advertising networks, but not from Google?
    FWIW Google doesn't place pop-up ads, interstitials or other highly irritating ads. Yes there's a difference between a near-impossible to dismiss full-page pop-up and a sidebar ad for some shoe I'm looking into purchasing, and I'm certain you agree. So while they're doing so for their own benefit, those benefits flow to you and me too. Allowing intrusive ads to take over some websites pushes some visitors to block all ads which will come with a new set of problems. So Google is doing some part in  "protecting the realm" , allowing web users to have a more positive experience and helping ensure ad-blocking doesn't become the norm. 

    Yup, a selfish motive that benefits you. Not the only company that does that eh? 
    edited April 20 muthuk_vanalingamanantksundaramavon b7jony0
  • Reply 6 of 26
    Sounds like it could be considered anti competitive. Blocking annoying ads, as judged by a coalition formed by Google. Probably it'll result in a better experience for everyone but I'll continue using adblock to keep some competition in the game. I'm sure google will consider youtube video ads not-annoying, while Ad Block blocks them
    watto_cobramonstrosity
  • Reply 7 of 26
    gatorguy said:
    An advertising company blocking ads? Suuuuuurrrre.

    Blocking irritating ads. You mean like ads from COMPETING advertising networks, but not from Google?
    FWIW Google doesn't place pop-up ads, interstitials or other highly irritating ads. Yes there's a difference between a near-impossible to dismiss full-page pop-up and a sidebar ad for some shoe I'm looking into purchasing, and I'm certain you agree. So while they're doing so for their own benefit, those benefits flow to you and me too. Allowing intrusive ads to take over some websites pushes some visitors to block all ads which will come with a new set of problems. So Google is doing some part in  "protecting the realm" , allowing web users to have a more positive experience and helping ensure ad-blocking doesn't become the norm. 

    Yup, a selfish motive that benefits you. Not the only company that does that eh? 

    Are you claiming all sites that only use Google Ads are behaving properly and only inserting a couple well-placed and unobtrusive ads?

    Only benefit to me is no ads. I don't need them sucking up my bandwidth and I don't need to be tracked.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 26
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 15,920member
    gatorguy said:
    An advertising company blocking ads? Suuuuuurrrre.

    Blocking irritating ads. You mean like ads from COMPETING advertising networks, but not from Google?
    FWIW Google doesn't place pop-up ads, interstitials or other highly irritating ads. Yes there's a difference between a near-impossible to dismiss full-page pop-up and a sidebar ad for some shoe I'm looking into purchasing, and I'm certain you agree. So while they're doing so for their own benefit, those benefits flow to you and me too. Allowing intrusive ads to take over some websites pushes some visitors to block all ads which will come with a new set of problems. So Google is doing some part in  "protecting the realm" , allowing web users to have a more positive experience and helping ensure ad-blocking doesn't become the norm. 

    Yup, a selfish motive that benefits you. Not the only company that does that eh? 

    Are you claiming all sites that only use Google Ads are behaving properly and only inserting a couple well-placed and unobtrusive ads?

    Only benefit to me is no ads. I don't need them sucking up my bandwidth and I don't need to be tracked.
    Yeah pretty much, tho I'm sure there's some percentage that don't. If Google proceeds with ad-blocking plans, coupled with their current down-ranking of webspages with overly intrusive ones, most of the riff-raff will come around eventually. 

    But despite that you apparently won't mind not having AI nor most other consumer or fan-oriented sites on the internet either since most are ad-supported. If you aren't getting any benefit from Apple Insider, or Ars or any number of other sites you use then they should not be paid for serving you, nor should you waste time visiting them adn taking advantage of their resources like paid writers, researched articles, advice, etc. I wonder how DED would feel about working for free? We should all use an ad blocker and find out. 

    Further many sites are allowing data aggregators like Datalogix, Media Math and others like them to monitor and harvest user data for various purposes which may have nothing at all to do with an ad. But as long as you don't see an ad all is good I suppose. Ignorance is bliss. 
    edited April 20 jony0
  • Reply 9 of 26
    sergiozsergioz Posts: 91member
    I am all for it https://www.betterads.org/standards/ They also should add invisible tracking scripts to it also that running in the background!
    edited April 20 watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 26
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    An advertising company blocking ads? Suuuuuurrrre.

    Blocking irritating ads. You mean like ads from COMPETING advertising networks, but not from Google?
    FWIW Google doesn't place pop-up ads, interstitials or other highly irritating ads. Yes there's a difference between a near-impossible to dismiss full-page pop-up and a sidebar ad for some shoe I'm looking into purchasing, and I'm certain you agree. So while they're doing so for their own benefit, those benefits flow to you and me too. Allowing intrusive ads to take over some websites pushes some visitors to block all ads which will come with a new set of problems. So Google is doing some part in  "protecting the realm" , allowing web users to have a more positive experience and helping ensure ad-blocking doesn't become the norm. 

    Yup, a selfish motive that benefits you. Not the only company that does that eh? 

    Are you claiming all sites that only use Google Ads are behaving properly and only inserting a couple well-placed and unobtrusive ads?

    Only benefit to me is no ads. I don't need them sucking up my bandwidth and I don't need to be tracked.
    Yeah pretty much.

    You apparently won't mind not having AI nor most other consumer or fan-oriented sites on the internet either since most are ad-supported. If you aren't getting any benefit from Apple Insider, or Ars or any number of other sites then they should not be paid for serving you, nor should you waste time visiting them. I wonder how DED would feel about working for free? We should all use an ad blocker and find out. 

    Further many sites are allowing data aggregators like Datalogix, Media Math and others like them to monitor and harvest user data for various purposes which may have nothing at all to do with an ad. But as long as you don't see an ad all is good I suppose. Ignorance is bliss. 

    Then you are the one who's ignorant, if you're claiming sites using Google Ads are all behaving. Similar to how you claim YouTube takes down illegal or copyrighted content. There's a huge difference between what Google says/tries to do and reality (like being able to find pretty much any content you want on YouTube knowing that as fast as they can take it down something else fills its place or being able to create click-bait based sites and make money off Google Ads without going against Google policies).

    Funny you should mention Ars, as I'm actually a paid subscriber there. We don't need 1,001 tech sites (as an example) which all basically report the same news. We could eliminate most of them and be left with a few quality sites that generate worthwhile content. They'll earn money the correct way - by presenting content people like and getting advertisers willing to sponsor their site DIRECTLY (without using an ad network) or through a subscription model (there are already companies working on a method to allow access to multiple sites with a single subscription, similar to how you can comment on multiple sites with something like Disqus).

    Serious question, do you ever get tired of defending Google? It's like clockwork - any article appears on AI about Google and you show up just in time to counter any possible negative content in the article itself or subsequent posts.
    StrangeDayspscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 26
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    An advertising company blocking ads? Suuuuuurrrre.

    Blocking irritating ads. You mean like ads from COMPETING advertising networks, but not from Google?
    FWIW Google doesn't place pop-up ads, interstitials or other highly irritating ads. Yes there's a difference between a near-impossible to dismiss full-page pop-up and a sidebar ad for some shoe I'm looking into purchasing, and I'm certain you agree. So while they're doing so for their own benefit, those benefits flow to you and me too. Allowing intrusive ads to take over some websites pushes some visitors to block all ads which will come with a new set of problems. So Google is doing some part in  "protecting the realm" , allowing web users to have a more positive experience and helping ensure ad-blocking doesn't become the norm. 

    Yup, a selfish motive that benefits you. Not the only company that does that eh? 

    Are you claiming all sites that only use Google Ads are behaving properly and only inserting a couple well-placed and unobtrusive ads?

    Only benefit to me is no ads. I don't need them sucking up my bandwidth and I don't need to be tracked.
    You apparently won't mind not visiting AI any nor most other consumer or fan-oriented sites on the internet either since most are ad-supported.
    For once we agree. Ads are a necessary evil although they really can be useful at times. Pop ups and other obtrusive ads, however, forced me to put up ad blockers on my browsers. I won't be installing Chrome but any attempt by Google to bring some sanity to the business would be a welcome relief. 

    There are times when I will purchase products for the sake of being ad free. I highly resent buying something and also having to deal with ads also. It's why I stopped going to movie theatres. I purchase a ticket for the movie. Not to have a bunch of previews thrown at me. I can tolerate the FBI piracy warning. But I would rather the feature show start 10 minutes earlier. Put the ads on a free medium like CBS. Even ad supported television, I can fast forward through the ads by using a DVR. Web added advertising has become toxic. The Amazon app is vastly superior to search based purchasing. There are no noxious pop ups to deal with. 
  • Reply 12 of 26
    Vaguely on topic, are there any good (as in, they don't mess up the browsing experience) ad-blockers currently available for iOS that allow one to selectively whitelist sites?
  • Reply 13 of 26
    waltgwaltg Posts: 63member
    Ads ads ads,,, sooo sick of all of them! We are just flooded with them, and 95% and I'm being nice here are nothing but pure worthless trash!!! It was so bad, I finally did start using an add blocker which works pretty good to. Just like tv, you can't watch the thing for all the adds, and we pay to watch it!!! For those that are too young, or just don't know, that was the intent for pay TV in the beginning to get rid of commercials! Now we pay an anormous fee to watch 80% commercials!!!!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 26
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 15,920member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    An advertising company blocking ads? Suuuuuurrrre.

    Blocking irritating ads. You mean like ads from COMPETING advertising networks, but not from Google?
    FWIW Google doesn't place pop-up ads, interstitials or other highly irritating ads. Yes there's a difference between a near-impossible to dismiss full-page pop-up and a sidebar ad for some shoe I'm looking into purchasing, and I'm certain you agree. So while they're doing so for their own benefit, those benefits flow to you and me too. Allowing intrusive ads to take over some websites pushes some visitors to block all ads which will come with a new set of problems. So Google is doing some part in  "protecting the realm" , allowing web users to have a more positive experience and helping ensure ad-blocking doesn't become the norm. 

    Yup, a selfish motive that benefits you. Not the only company that does that eh? 

    Are you claiming all sites that only use Google Ads are behaving properly and only inserting a couple well-placed and unobtrusive ads?

    Only benefit to me is no ads. I don't need them sucking up my bandwidth and I don't need to be tracked.
    Yeah pretty much.

    You apparently won't mind not having AI nor most other consumer or fan-oriented sites on the internet either since most are ad-supported. If you aren't getting any benefit from Apple Insider, or Ars or any number of other sites then they should not be paid for serving you, nor should you waste time visiting them. I wonder how DED would feel about working for free? We should all use an ad blocker and find out. 

    Further many sites are allowing data aggregators like Datalogix, Media Math and others like them to monitor and harvest user data for various purposes which may have nothing at all to do with an ad. But as long as you don't see an ad all is good I suppose. Ignorance is bliss. 

    Then you are the one who's ignorant, if you're claiming sites using Google Ads are all behaving. 

    Serious question, do you ever get tired of defending Google? It's like clockwork - any article appears on AI about Google and you show up just in time to counter any possible negative content in the article itself or subsequent posts.
    That's not what was asked nor what I said. You asked about websites that use ONLY Google ads. Don't you read what you write? Sure seemed pretty specific.  If you can find one of those with a Google-supplied annoying pop-up then I'll happily admit to being wrong. I love learning something new. (I think this is where you typically disappear). Otherwise drop the silly personal insults. 

    As far as "defending Google" it's more about doing away with unhelpful FUD, which on certain sites ends up being promoted as fact and happily accepted without question as long as it involves a competitor. Tell me how that helps anyone to be mislead or even occasionally outright lied to? it doesn't. I'd ask you why you're so accepting of disinformation and secondly why you would call out someone who makes an effort to correct it? 
    edited April 20 jony0
  • Reply 15 of 26
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 15,920member
    Vaguely on topic, are there any good (as in, they don't mess up the browsing experience) ad-blockers currently available for iOS that allow one to selectively whitelist sites?
    Ghostery. That's what I use, and yeah some sites just don't cooperate with ad-blockers and have to be white-listed. Lookin' at you Wired. 
    anantksundaramjony0
  • Reply 16 of 26
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 15,920member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    An advertising company blocking ads? Suuuuuurrrre.

    Blocking irritating ads. You mean like ads from COMPETING advertising networks, but not from Google?
    FWIW Google doesn't place pop-up ads, interstitials or other highly irritating ads. Yes there's a difference between a near-impossible to dismiss full-page pop-up and a sidebar ad for some shoe I'm looking into purchasing, and I'm certain you agree. So while they're doing so for their own benefit, those benefits flow to you and me too. Allowing intrusive ads to take over some websites pushes some visitors to block all ads which will come with a new set of problems. So Google is doing some part in  "protecting the realm" , allowing web users to have a more positive experience and helping ensure ad-blocking doesn't become the norm. 

    Yup, a selfish motive that benefits you. Not the only company that does that eh? 

    Are you claiming all sites that only use Google Ads are behaving properly and only inserting a couple well-placed and unobtrusive ads?

    Only benefit to me is no ads. I don't need them sucking up my bandwidth and I don't need to be tracked.
    Yeah pretty much.

    You apparently won't mind not having AI nor most other consumer or fan-oriented sites on the internet either since most are ad-supported. If you aren't getting any benefit from Apple Insider, or Ars or any number of other sites then they should not be paid for serving you, nor should you waste time visiting them. I wonder how DED would feel about working for free? We should all use an ad blocker and find out. 

    Further many sites are allowing data aggregators like Datalogix, Media Math and others like them to monitor and harvest user data for various purposes which may have nothing at all to do with an ad. But as long as you don't see an ad all is good I suppose. Ignorance is bliss. 
    Funny you should mention Ars, as I'm actually a paid subscriber there.  They'll earn money the correct way - by presenting content people like and getting advertisers willing to sponsor their site DIRECTLY (without using an ad network) or through a subscription model (there are already companies working on a method to allow access to multiple sites with a single subscription, similar to how you can comment on multiple sites with something like Disqus).
    Disqus? Have you ever wondered how they earn their revenue? You should look sometime, it will only take a minute. 

    As for a subscription service to websites in lieu of ads Google is trying one more time to see if they can get web-users to try it. First round wasn't very successful, too few willing to actually pay real money. Is it something you would do to allow website owners to earn a living while you avoid ad-tracking on those sites? 
    http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/12/17/google-contributor-discontinued-favor-newer-iteration-due-early-2017/
    edited April 20
  • Reply 17 of 26
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 1,361member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    An advertising company blocking ads? Suuuuuurrrre.

    Blocking irritating ads. You mean like ads from COMPETING advertising networks, but not from Google?
    FWIW Google doesn't place pop-up ads, interstitials or other highly irritating ads. Yes there's a difference between a near-impossible to dismiss full-page pop-up and a sidebar ad for some shoe I'm looking into purchasing, and I'm certain you agree. So while they're doing so for their own benefit, those benefits flow to you and me too. Allowing intrusive ads to take over some websites pushes some visitors to block all ads which will come with a new set of problems. So Google is doing some part in  "protecting the realm" , allowing web users to have a more positive experience and helping ensure ad-blocking doesn't become the norm. 

    Yup, a selfish motive that benefits you. Not the only company that does that eh? 

    Are you claiming all sites that only use Google Ads are behaving properly and only inserting a couple well-placed and unobtrusive ads?

    Only benefit to me is no ads. I don't need them sucking up my bandwidth and I don't need to be tracked.
    Yeah pretty much, tho I'm sure there's some percentage that don't. If Google proceeds with ad-blocking plans, coupled with their current down-ranking of webspages with overly intrusive ones, most of the riff-raff will come around eventually. 

    But despite that you apparently won't mind not having AI nor most other consumer or fan-oriented sites on the internet either since most are ad-supported. If you aren't getting any benefit from Apple Insider, or Ars or any number of other sites you use then they should not be paid for serving you, nor should you waste time visiting them adn taking advantage of their resources like paid writers, researched articles, advice, etc. I wonder how DED would feel about working for free? We should all use an ad blocker and find out. 

    Further many sites are allowing data aggregators like Datalogix, Media Math and others like them to monitor and harvest user data for various purposes which may have nothing at all to do with an ad. But as long as you don't see an ad all is good I suppose. Ignorance is bliss. 
    So do you also advocate we all sit down and watch all the ads on TV programs we enjoy? Rather than skip past them, walk into the kitchen, put a load of laundry in, etc...Just watch all the ads because it's the fair thing to do? Should we also not switch radio stations during ad breaks?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 26
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 1,361member

    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    An advertising company blocking ads? Suuuuuurrrre.

    Blocking irritating ads. You mean like ads from COMPETING advertising networks, but not from Google?
    FWIW Google doesn't place pop-up ads, interstitials or other highly irritating ads. Yes there's a difference between a near-impossible to dismiss full-page pop-up and a sidebar ad for some shoe I'm looking into purchasing, and I'm certain you agree. So while they're doing so for their own benefit, those benefits flow to you and me too. Allowing intrusive ads to take over some websites pushes some visitors to block all ads which will come with a new set of problems. So Google is doing some part in  "protecting the realm" , allowing web users to have a more positive experience and helping ensure ad-blocking doesn't become the norm. 

    Yup, a selfish motive that benefits you. Not the only company that does that eh? 

    Are you claiming all sites that only use Google Ads are behaving properly and only inserting a couple well-placed and unobtrusive ads?

    Only benefit to me is no ads. I don't need them sucking up my bandwidth and I don't need to be tracked.
    Yeah pretty much.

    You apparently won't mind not having AI nor most other consumer or fan-oriented sites on the internet either since most are ad-supported. If you aren't getting any benefit from Apple Insider, or Ars or any number of other sites then they should not be paid for serving you, nor should you waste time visiting them. I wonder how DED would feel about working for free? We should all use an ad blocker and find out. 

    Further many sites are allowing data aggregators like Datalogix, Media Math and others like them to monitor and harvest user data for various purposes which may have nothing at all to do with an ad. But as long as you don't see an ad all is good I suppose. Ignorance is bliss. 
    Serious question, do you ever get tired of defending Google? It's like clockwork - any article appears on AI about Google and you show up just in time to counter any possible negative content in the article itself or subsequent posts.
    Yeah i'll never really understand that. He said he doesn't work for google, but he's very clearly personally interested in holding a torch for them at every possible opportunity. And it's not limited to google-fud-busting. If this were a google site i'd get it, but since it isn't, i don't. 
    edited April 20 pscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 26
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 1,361member

    Vaguely on topic, are there any good (as in, they don't mess up the browsing experience) ad-blockers currently available for iOS that allow one to selectively whitelist sites?
    1Blocker is my personal fav, with iOS and Mac clients. Ads, trackers, whitelist, custom rules, and even ability to select HTML elements to block. 
    edited April 20 watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 26
    BluntBlunt Posts: 35member
    Why even use Chrome. Overhyped spyware.
    tallest skilwatto_cobrabestkeptsecret
Sign In or Register to comment.