Google Will Activate Chrome’s Built-In Ad Blocker on February 15

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Google announced that it would be integrating an ad blocker into Chrome to cut down on spammy or intrusive advertisements, and now, the company has revealed when it will actually go live: February 15th, 2018. It is expected to block full-page ads, ads with autoplaying sound and video, and flashing ads.

In June, we announced Chrome's plans to support the Better Ads Standards in early 2018. Violations of the Standards are reported to sites via the Ad Experience Report, and site owners can submit their site for re-review once the violations have been fixed. Starting on February 15, in line with the Coalition's guidelines, Chrome will remove all ads from sites that have a "failing" status in the Ad Experience Report for more than 30 days.
 
Will this cause any problems with third party security suites that we might own?
 
Looks like a good reason to switch to chrome for my general browsing needs.
 
Will this be an excuse to eliminate the other ad blockers, like the ones that also block youtube ads for example?
 
Does anyone else recognize the absurdity of a browser, whose revenues are largely predicated on ad sales, implementing an ad blocker? It may seem altruistic, but everyone should be asking "Who stands to gain the most from this?"
 
Good. I'm looking forward to this. I'm not uninstalling Ublock (that bullshit secret crypto-currency mining is reason alone to keep it installed) but I'll gladly whitelist more sites with this happening.

wyqtor said:
Will this be an excuse to eliminate the other ad blockers, like the ones that also block youtube ads for example?
Click to expand...

Depends. This isn't an adblocker like Ublock or ABP. This one will block ads that don't meet the strict requirements created by the Coalition for Better Ads. As long as your website meets these requirements the ads will be shown.

The end game is to get more sites to make ads unobtrusive and not ridiculously annoying. That way ad blockers won't be needed by many. We all know ad blockers will never go away but the growth rate of ad blocking use will potentially go down allowing website revenue to increase which is not a bad thing.

spugm1r3 said:
Does anyone else recognize the absurdity of a browser, whose revenues are largely predicated on ad sales, implementing an ad blocker? It may seem altruistic, but everyone should be asking "Who stands to gain the most from this?"
Click to expand...

You apparently haven't read up on this at all. Much less the Coalition for Better Ads. This is not a bad thing. Google's own ads will be blocked if they do not meet the requirements.
 
Now Google can more easily block competitors ads and make sure more people send money to Google. Google is the #1 Online ad provider and absolutely should not have been on the “Coalition for Better Ads”.

This isn’t an ad blocker, it’s an ad filter. And you can be damn sure most of Google’s ads will be “fine”.
 
Vermillion said:
Good. I'm looking forward to this. I'm not uninstalling Ublock (that bullshit secret crypto-currency mining is reason alone to keep it installed) but I'll gladly whitelist more sites with this happening.



Depends. This isn't an adblocker like Ublock or ABP. This one will block ads that don't meet the strict requirements created by the Coalition for Better Ads. As long as your website meets these requirements the ads will be shown.

The end game is to get more sites to make ads unobtrusive and not ridiculously annoying. That way ad blockers won't be needed by many. We all know ad blockers will never go away but the growth rate of ad blocking use will potentially go down allowing website revenue to increase which is not a bad thing.



You apparently haven't read up on this at all. Much less the Coalition for Better Ads. This is not a bad thing. Google's own ads will be blocked if they do not meet the requirements.
Click to expand...

I have read it. I've also seen that Google is a board member, and has members on the boards of other Better Ads board members. This means that Google is poised to shape the definition of a "better ad" to that which is better for them.

I actually like there being a standards body for ads, since a lot of nefarious crap has been perpetrated through the loopholes created by ads. I'm just eyes-wide-open about what it means I will be seeing.
 
spugm1r3 said:
Does anyone else recognize the absurdity of a browser, whose revenues are largely predicated on ad sales, implementing an ad blocker? It may seem altruistic, but everyone should be asking "Who stands to gain the most from this?"
Click to expand...
Exactly
In the oft-paraphrased words of Deep Throat, "Follow the Money"
 
"ads with auto playing sound and video", so they're going to block youtube ads? lolz.
 
Can we get the best of both worlds?

Ad isn't seen by viewer, but website still thinks ad was loaded and publisher still gets revenue.

Is it possible to have an ad blocker that works with the ad is still being blocked, it doesn't load or the viewer doesn't see it, but website still registered the ads loaded and viewed so the website still gets its ad revenue. Wouldn't that be a win-win situation?
 
spugm1r3 said:
I have read it. I've also seen that Google is a board member, and has members on the boards of other Better Ads board members. This means that Google is poised to shape the definition of a "better ad" to that which is better for them.

I actually like there being a standards body for ads, since a lot of nefarious crap has been perpetrated through the loopholes created by ads. I'm just eyes-wide-open about what it means I will be seeing.
Click to expand...

Do other board members control search, and browsers? Google is throwing their weight around, and has a far stronger position then anyone else that might be part of that group.
 
Google... blocking ads? Yeah right. Oh wait, they're allowing the ads THEY think are OK.

Thanks again Google, for managing my view of the world! Much appreciated!
 
Google even sends a ads in the mail to signup for ad words it's pathetic.
 
wyqtor said:
Will this be an excuse to eliminate the other ad blockers, like the ones that also block youtube ads for example?
Click to expand...
If this block youtube ads, I will be very very surprised.
I have been a youtube Red member since day one so i have not seen any in a year or more but I am surprised ad blockers still work.
 
rigurat said:
Can we get the best of both worlds?

Ad isn't seen by viewer, but website still thinks ad was loaded and publisher still gets revenue.

Is it possible to have an ad blocker that works with the ad is still being blocked, it doesn't load or the viewer doesn't see it, but website still registered the ads loaded and viewed so the website still gets its ad revenue. Wouldn't that be a win-win situation?
Click to expand...

No, that is called fraud...

I guess I personally don't get the ad blocker thing... I never have used one and the most annoying are generally on sites I shouldn't be on anyways, click bait, slideshow one sentence per page site...

Though I like the idea of an ads standard that puts limits on the worst scammy types while still allowing the passive decent ones that help support the content we are consuming.

Google being on the board is questionable, but as long as the standard is open and clear they can at least be monitored and called out if there is an issue. Though ultimately something like this is GOOD for google, they don't want these block all ads out there reducing their income and effectiveness.
 
One thing i was thinking about the other day is how do i reward/pay for those places whose news is worth reading. Like others I dont want to sign up separately for each site. What would be neat is if a service came into being where i created an account with it, added money to it to buy "news tokens" then when I find a site where i want to read the article i can give it a few news tokens that they redeem for actual money. the site could have a pop up asking to allow ads or pay X amount of news tokens to read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top