Google may build native ad-blocking into mobile & desktop versions of Chrome
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.
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.
Comments
Blocking irritating ads. You mean like ads from COMPETING advertising networks, but not from Google?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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/
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.
1Blocker is my personal fav, with iOS and Mac clients. Ads, trackers, whitelist, custom rules, and even ability to select HTML elements to block.