Google Chrome with Native Ad Blocker Now in the Wild

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,596
Android Police is reporting that both versions of Chrome Canary and Chrome Dev are in the wild now that have Google's new native ad blocking working. I did download both these versions on my Pixel XL and neither had the option available, so your mileage may vary. Google's hope in all of this is that these native ad blockers will dissaude people from using adblockers that simply remove all ads that are impacting many content creators, like ourselves. Nearly 65% of our readers now block all our ads, our primary way of paying the bills. If you do, please consider Patreon.


It may seem strange that Google is introducing an ad blocker to its browser, given that its core business is in online advertising. It actually makes a lot of sense, as the ads that will be blocked will be the intrusive ones that have nothing to do with Google. The standards will be agreed upon by members of the Coalition for Better Ads, including Google. By blocking the offending ads, the company hopes to dissuade users from installing third party blocking software that does impact its business.
 
I'm definitely on board with this. I've never once felt haggled by a Google ad. In fact I find Google ads so discrete that I dont understand how they even drive their business. However I was recently forced to use Edge at work and had become so used to Ublock with Chrome that I had forgotten what dystopian ad riddled nightmare the average webpage has become. It was so bad that I said to hell with company policy and went back to Chrome where I could breathe again (windows store is blocked so I cant download any adblockers for Edge there).
 
Google makes its bid to capture as close to all internet ad revenue as it can. Their dream: users will only see ads that Google approves, and Google will only approve ads if the advertiser pays Google to do so.

But relax, it ill be fine, because Google isn't evil. How do we know? Because They Say So.
 
jpm100 said:
Clarified the purpose.
Click to expand...
That was a really really poor choice of words. Google is just smart enough to realize that full screen interstitial ads are what drive the ad-blocking market. The more ads people skip, the more desperate advertisers become and try to push even more obnoxious ads. It's like they think if ad revenue is down they must not be advertising hard enough. Google ads have always been very non-invasive so it makes perfect sense for them to help shape an atmosphere that people are willing to tolerate. I cant tell you how many times some disruptive ad has tilted me so much that I just closed the tab entirely and said screw that site, I'd rather get my info from elsewhere.
 
pcgeekesq said:
Google makes its bid to capture as close to all internet ad revenue as it can. Their dream: users will only see ads that Google approves, and Google will only approve ads if the advertiser pays Google to do so.

But relax, it ill be fine, because Google isn't evil. How do we know? Because They Say So.
Click to expand...
These arent Google sanctioned ads that go through google ad services netting them any sort of cut. Think of it more like an API for ads, a template for all ads to follow. As long as the ad looks cogent Google will show it in chrome. It doesnt actually get run through google servers or anything like that. Remember people, Google doesnt own the browser market. You are free to get all the ads you want using other web browsers.
 
Coalition for Better Ads? That's an easy job. The best ads are the ones you never see, hear, or otherwise.
 
If you want me to view your ads, then fully vet and host your own ads.

What you will not get from me is authorization to allow random scripts from 50 different websites to load when I go to a page on your site.

If you can't fully host all of your own content on your own servers, then I'm not interested in anything you have to say.
 
EJ42 said:
If you want me to view your ads, then fully vet and host your own ads.

What you will not get from me is authorization to allow random scripts from 50 different websites to load when I go to a page on your site.

If you can't fully host all of your own content on your own servers, then I'm not interested in anything you have to say.
Click to expand...
How about you do not visit our pages if you do not want to view our ads?
 
EJ42 said:
If you want me to view your ads, then fully vet and host your own ads.

What you will not get from me is authorization to allow random scripts from 50 different websites to load when I go to a page on your site.

If you can't fully host all of your own content on your own servers, then I'm not interested in anything you have to say.
Click to expand...
The problem is that lots of websites are run by smaller shops that don't have the resources to solicit, vet, and process the ads. Using an ad network frees up their time to work on the site itself.
 
It should be a punishable offense for websites to have ads that overlay the site or go full screen. PCGamer is one of the worst offenders, not to mention that half of the mobile ads that do that reset your screen position to the top of the page when closed. I refuse to go to sites that full-screen ads on mobile now.

Ad-blockers have a reason to exist, people HATE intrusive ads. So we would rather just block them all and be done with it.
 
reFre5h said:
It should be a punishable offense for websites to have ads that overlay the site or go full screen. PCGamer is one of the worst offenders, not to mention that half of the mobile ads that do that reset your screen position to the top of the page when closed.

Ad-blockers have a reason to exist, people HATE intrusive ads. So we would rather just block them all and be done with it.
Click to expand...
You want worse? There's a website that serves up multiple video ads from Google, that periodically scrolls down to show you the ad even if you are in the middle of entering something into a field (like a search field).

Worse, it's a site built by a community, and that used to be free. Now it is now aggressively monetizing the information that other people contributed to it.
 
oshia86 said:
Nearly the only time I visit this site I do so on my work computer. This system blocks the ads automatically and I don't have the ability to change that. Should I just not visit as well?
Click to expand...
I have no issue with that at all. That has been a reality for years.
 
reFre5h said:
It should be a punishable offense for websites to have ads that overlay the site or go full screen. PCGamer is one of the worst offenders, not to mention that half of the mobile ads that do that reset your screen position to the top of the page when closed. I refuse to go to sites that full-screen ads on mobile now.

Ad-blockers have a reason to exist, people HATE intrusive ads. So we would rather just block them all and be done with it.
Click to expand...
When the independent sites that you use are gone, just remember that running adblockers had a hand in it.
 
reFre5h said:
It should be a punishable offense for websites to have ads that overlay the site or go full screen. PCGamer is one of the worst offenders, not to mention that half of the mobile ads that do that reset your screen position to the top of the page when closed. I refuse to go to sites that full-screen ads on mobile now.

Ad-blockers have a reason to exist, people HATE intrusive ads. So we would rather just block them all and be done with it.
Click to expand...
I find the ones that automatically start playing videos with the sound cranked up. That should be illegal.
 
Last edited:
It would be one thing if they released an ad blocker that blocked all ads, but conveniently it doesn't block their own ads. This seems like an antitrust lawsuit in the making. Google controls the browser, Google controls the advertising, Google locks out competition and has webmasters at their mercy.

So much for "don't be evil." I hope they get broken up by the DOJ.
 
Zinn said:
It would be one thing if they released an ad blocker that blocked all ads, but conveniently it doesn't block their own ads. This seems like an antitrust lawsuit in the making. Google controls the browser, Google controls the advertising, Google locks out competition and has webmasters at their mercy.

So much for "don't be evil." I hope they get broken up by the DOJ.
Click to expand...
Damn some of you are as misinformed as the net neutrality deniers. These arent "google ads", they are simply ads that follow google's design. Think of it like coding a webpage in HTML vs some random gobbly-gook scripting language that doesnt render properly on half the browsers in existence. Obviously Google intends to follow their own ruleset so of course their ads will always display. As long as your ad isnt an auto-play video that minimizes to the corner of the screen as you scroll down the page, or pops up half way into reading the article, or floats near the taskbar requiring you to dismiss it, or any other number of asinine ad styles then the ad will display. I dont know how restrictive Google's template is but I imagine there will be some leeway for sites that need it to conform to their site's style.
 
Honestly I don't mind non intrusive advertisements...

Ones that hover over the content, auto play audio/video, re-direct either the current or forcefully opens & focuses on a new tab should all be grounds for beating those advertisers to within an inch of their life.
 
I'm all for fixing the problem and having ads that are far less annoying. I use the Samsung browser on my phone and it with an ad blocker is just 10x faster than chrome is on mobile.
 
nysmo said:
Damn some of you are as misinformed as the net neutrality deniers. These arent "google ads", they are simply ads that follow google's design. Think of it like coding a webpage in HTML vs some random gobbly-gook scripting language that doesnt render properly on half the browsers in existence. Obviously Google intends to follow their own ruleset so of course their ads will always display. As long as your ad isnt an auto-play video that minimizes to the corner of the screen as you scroll down the page, or pops up half way into reading the article, or floats near the taskbar requiring you to dismiss it, or any other number of asinine ad styles then the ad will display. I dont know how restrictive Google's template is but I imagine there will be some leeway for sites that need it to conform to their site's style.
Click to expand...
Right, so Google gets to dictate how their competition behaves if their ads are to be served in Google's browser? Oh, sorry I mean actually the rules are dictated by Google's self-regulatory industry group that oversees "good advertising" - so it's definitely not Google forcing companies to behave a certain way, but rather a completely independent industry watchdog that exists only for the betterment of humanity.

Give me a break. A lot of web advertisement is annoying as fuck, but don't kid yourself that what Google is doing is altruistic in the least. They already practically own search, now they're going to lock advertising competitors out of the market by making Chrome block HTTP requests based on arbitrary criteria that their "independent" industry group decides on their behalf through a layer of plausible deniability.

This is incredibly shady monopolistic behavior, and to say it's okay because some online ads are annoying completely misses the point.
 
Zinn said:
Right, so Google gets to dictate how their competition behaves if their ads are to be served in Google's browser? Oh, sorry I mean actually the rules are dictated by Google's self-regulatory industry group that oversees "good advertising" - so it's definitely not Google forcing companies to behave a certain way, but rather a completely independent industry watchdog that exists only for the betterment of humanity.

Give me a break. A lot of web advertisement is annoying as fuck, but don't kid yourself that what Google is doing is altruistic in the least. They already practically own search, now they're going to lock advertising competitors out of the market by making Chrome block HTTP requests based on arbitrary criteria that their "independent" industry group decides on their behalf through a layer of plausible deniability.

This is incredibly shady monopolistic behavior, and to say it's okay because some online ads are annoying completely misses the point.
Click to expand...
But as long as your ad looks like a Google ad then it runs, so whats the problem? How is a Google ad going to have any more prominence than an [H] ad? They'll all look the same and be treated equally. Right now many people use Ublock which blocks every ad it can possibly detect, so any resurgence in advertising will be a net positive for websites.

Think of it like Flash vs HTML5. Flash is so garbage that Google said to hell with it and stop supporting it. Does that make Google evil trying to force the world to standardize? There is no advantage gained over a competitor if that competitor uses the proper language, and it's something that needs to be done.
 
nysmo said:
But as long as your ad looks like a Google ad then it runs, so whats the problem? How is a Google ad going to have any more prominence than an [H] ad? They'll all look the same and be treated equally. Right now many people use Ublock which blocks every ad it can possibly detect, so any resurgence in advertising will be a net positive for websites.

Think of it like Flash vs HTML5. Flash is so garbage that Google said to hell with it and stop supporting it. Does that make Google evil trying to force the world to standardize? There is no advantage gained over a competitor if that competitor uses the proper language, and it's something that needs to be done.
Click to expand...
Google never stopped supporting Flash.

Your assumption is that Google should be able to decide what an advertisement should look like and that as long as other companies abide by whatever rules Google makes up, then there's no problem, right?

You have effectively argued that Google should have complete autonomy to regulate an industry that they have a dominant market position in. Can't you see the obvious conflict of interest there?
 
EJ42 said:
It's not my responsibility to fix your problems. If you want to send away visitors, then feel free.

If you want to draw in more visitors, then cater to us. Give us a way to view your ads without having to trust crap that loads from some domain that is not controlled by hardocp.

Don't throw your guests to the wolves, or don't invite them to your house.
Click to expand...
Well now you're just being unreasonable. Does [H] also have to house their own server farms located within the editors roof? It's perfectly normal for a website to outsource ad services. It's not like if they maintained their own ad servers they are more secure. If anything they could be less secure since [H] might not have the resources and experience to run a system like this.
 
Zinn said:
Google never stopped supporting Flash.

Your assumption is that Google should be able to decide what an advertisement should look like and that as long as other companies abide by whatever rules Google makes up, then there's no problem, right?

You have effectively argued that Google should have complete autonomy to regulate an industry that they have a dominant market position in. Can't you see the obvious conflict of interest there?
Click to expand...
They arent regulating, they are standardizing. This does not give them any advantage if everyone adheres to the same standard. All new cars in the USA must have backup cameras. But you can use any backup camera you want, so it's not like Ford has some monopoly on cameras and are reaping all the rewards. The only way Ford benefits in that scenario is if Chevy decides not to obey, and in turn doesnt sell any cars.
 
nysmo said:
Well now you're just being unreasonable. Does [H] also have to house their own server farms located within the editors roof? It's perfectly normal for a website to outsource ad services. It's not like if they maintained their own ad servers they are more secure. If anything they could be less secure since [H] might not have the resources and experience to run a system like this.
Click to expand...
You have no idea about what you're talking about on a technical level, FYI. You obviously don't get why it's inherently dangerous to let third party HTTP origins inject arbitrary JavaScript under your domain.
 
nysmo said:
They arent regulating, they are standardizing. This does not give them any advantage if everyone adheres to the same standard. All new cars in the USA must have backup cameras. But you can use any backup camera you want, so it's not like Ford has some monopoly on cameras and are reaping all the rewards. The only way Ford benefits in that scenario is if Chevy decides not to obey, and in turn doesnt sell any cars.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and it's the role of government to impose regulations, not monopolistic market incumbents with clear incentives to block out new competition.
 
I have an ad blocker that lets me set the exact ad space that is blocked. AdThwart is a legacy chrome extension and I picked the source code from the page that is blocked. I still see ads from this page I just don't get the PITA ads that are from other sites i visited previously, those little spaces that have the "adChoices" logo. I removed those f-ers from most sites because they are often massive and take over a lot of real estate.
 
Zinn said:
You have no idea about what you're talking about on a technical level, FYI. You obviously don't get why it's inherently dangerous to let third party HTTP origins inject arbitrary JavaScript under your domain.
Click to expand...
I know exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm saying a website like [H] is not immune to having compromised ads served up because they run their own ad servers in house.
 
Zinn said:
Yeah, and it's the role of government to impose regulations, not monopolistic market incumbents with clear incentives to block out new competition.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "yeah", i just said google isnt regulating, they are setting a standard, like using Direct3D for graphics, HTML for web sites, etc. If Chrome supports HTML5 but you're still being stubborn using HTML2 does that mean Google is monopolizing you out of the market when they drop support for HTML2?

You seem to think that google has a patent on advertising and thus if they set a standard they are benefiting. You cant monopolize a market that everyone is free to join. The playing field for advertisements is a fair one. Google wont block your ad if your ad looks like a Google ad, and if this is the case then what advantage does this give Google when all ads look the same?
 
Last edited:
Zinn said:
Right, so Google gets to dictate how their competition behaves if their ads are to be served in Google's browser? Oh, sorry I mean actually the rules are dictated by Google's self-regulatory industry group that oversees "good advertising" - so it's definitely not Google forcing companies to behave a certain way, but rather a completely independent industry watchdog that exists only for the betterment of humanity.

Give me a break. A lot of web advertisement is annoying as fuck, but don't kid yourself that what Google is doing is altruistic in the least. They already practically own search, now they're going to lock advertising competitors out of the market by making Chrome block HTTP requests based on arbitrary criteria that their "independent" industry group decides on their behalf through a layer of plausible deniability.

This is incredibly shady monopolistic behavior, and to say it's okay because some online ads are annoying completely misses the point.
Click to expand...

It's not something new that google decided to just jump into, there has been a push from them and tons of other ad companies to serve less intrusive ads. https://www.betterads.org/

The idea is that if all the shitty ads keep popping up as they are, more people will block ALL ads indiscriminately, which will ruin it for everyone (both advertisers as lost revenue, and consumers as sites close down due to lack of funding). If they all agree to take it down a notch, then everyone wins. Nobody thinks it's in any way altruistic, it's self preservation of the industry as a whole. https://www.wired.com/2017/04/ad-blocking-just-might-save-ad-industry/ [H] reported on this stuff not that long ago.

"Whatever solution the group arrives at, Ingis says, Google won't be making decisions for the industry unilaterally. The ad formats that are blocked will be decided by the coalition's members based on its research on what types of ads consumers find most intrusive. The technology, if the coalition moves forward with it, will likely be eventually supported by other browsers as well. (WIRED publisher Conde Nast is a member of Digital Content Next, a trade group that is part of the Coalition for Better Ads.)"
 
EJ42 said:
It's not my responsibility to fix your problems. If you want to send away visitors, then feel free.

If you want to draw in more visitors, then cater to us. Give us a way to view your ads without having to trust crap that loads from some domain that is not controlled by hardocp.

Don't throw your guests to the wolves, or don't invite them to your house.
Click to expand...

Talk about unrealistic expectations.

Are you willing to donate your time and money to [H]OCP to make that a reality? If not, put up and shut up.
 
Assuming Google actually has real people vetting the ads that are allowed through (may be asking way too much), I would give this a try over using an adblocker.

To be honest, though, even when I load sites with ads I never click them in the first place. Do sites get revenue based on ad views or only clicks?
 
Ad views are a contentious subject for everyone, how does the Brave browser payment model fit in to this?

Is [H] a member and is there any browser share from Brave?


Honestly it's just so nice not being distracted by flashing ads, autoplay videos, and page layout issues that I forget to whitelist the less-abusive websites.
 
MavericK said:
Assuming Google actually has real people vetting the ads that are allowed through (may be asking way too much), I would give this a try over using an adblocker.

To be honest, though, even when I load sites with ads I never click them in the first place. Do sites get revenue based on ad views or only clicks?
Click to expand...
Depends on the ad network, but usually clicks. For most commercial purposes impressions (views) are next to worthless.
 
nysmo said:
I'm definitely on board with this. I've never once felt haggled by a Google ad. In fact I find Google ads so discrete that I dont understand how they even drive their business. However I was recently forced to use Edge at work and had become so used to Ublock with Chrome that I had forgotten what dystopian ad riddled nightmare the average webpage has become. It was so bad that I said to hell with company policy and went back to Chrome where I could breathe again (windows store is blocked so I cant download any adblockers for Edge there).
Click to expand...

You haven't found 10 second blocks of Youtube videos offensive? I wouldn't even dream to open Youtube unless I had the ads blocked.

The problem with ads is that even if they're not intrusive, they're a major security risk. So many attacks have been distributed by hacked ads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top