Rumor: Google to bake ad-blocking into Chrome browser

The Wall Street Journal reports that Google intends to include an ad-blocking component in future versions of its popular Chrome web browser. The new feature reportedly will be enabled by default in both the desktop and mobile versions of the browser. The WSJ says the rumors come from sources "familiar with Google's plans." The paper says the blocking will be targeted at ads deemed "beneath a threshhold of consumer acceptability." While at first the notion that a major player in online advertising would offer features to disable ads in one of its most popular software products seems counter-intuitve, recent trends suggest the idea is not as strange as it sounds at first.

According to the WSJ's sources, the built-in ad-blocker would stop ads that do not conform to the specifications of the Coalition for Better Ads, which counts both Google and Facebook as members. According to this industry body, non-compliant content includes autoplaying video ads with sound, pop-ups, and ads with countdown timers. The WSJ goes on to report that Google may be considering blocking all ads, compliant and not, on pages that show even one non-compliant ad.

This move may be a result of the increasing numbers of users employing ad-blocking browser extensions like Adblock Plus and uBlock Origin. Desktop users have long been able to use ad-blocking extensions like these within Chrome to keep this type of content off their screen, but the mobile versions of the browser lack support for extensions. If integrated blocking of ads with particularly annoying delivery methods can prevent users from installing sofware that blocks all ads, compliant advertisers could stand to benefit.

Of course, Google has a large dog in this fight, as well. The company is one of the largest sellers of online advertising around, and it's paid Adblock Plus developer Eyeo to whitelist its ads for at least some period of time in the past. We expect there's no love lost between Eyeo and Google, and Mountain View would doubtless like to keep the considerable fees it pays the plugin developer to ensure its ads appear even to Adblock Plus-running users. Including a proprietary ad-blocking plugin that works on Google's terms would doubtless give a decent swath of Chrome users no reason to install Eyeo's product.

The problem with Google's approach is that it would create a huge conflict of interest. As the owner of one of the most popular browsers in the world, Google would stand to wield an enormous amount of power over the shape of the web advertising market by developing an ad-blocking plugin. If the company's AdSense products just so happen to comply with its own internal guidelines by default, Google could (intentionally or otherwise) favor the display of its own ad products over those of other ad networks.

Google's rumored move could also have a chilling effect on the revenue of sites that rely on advertising to keep the lights on. If the company implements the aggressive form of ad-blocking described above wherein one non-compliant ad would cause Google to block all ads on a page, it's not clear how a publisher would appeal the decision or return to good standing.

By creating a de facto standard for acceptable ads, Google could also limit the amount of money advertisers might be willing to funnel into traditional ad campaigns, leading to a rise in harder-to-track and impossible-to-block forms of content like sponsored native articles.

For our part, TR has always taken every reasonable measure to make sure advertisements with these objectionable techniques don't appear to readers on our site. Fewer users employing blanket bans on advertising is something that we'd like to see, but we're not sure that a Google-produced plugin is the best arbiter of what constitutes an acceptable ad. Either way, we'd encourage readers to whitelist TR in their ad blockers. You'll find we run ads that are already plenty acceptable by any standard.

Comments closed
    • DeadOfKnight
    • 3 years ago

    If the first thing users do after installing Chrome is get an adblock plugin that may or may not block Google advertisements, why wouldn’t they bake in their own adblock that leaves it’s own ads alone and deincentivises such plugins? Makes sense to me. They can also go the route of AdBlock Pro and take bribes to let ads through. This can also tip the scales for browser benchmarks since it can skip the loading of content other browsers will load by default. Not only that, but it can probably help to sell more YouTube Red subscriptions.

    • dikowexeyu
    • 3 years ago

    It would be good to have certified ad providers, so it makes feasible to avoid using ad blockers on websites that the reader wants to support, but is also worrying that Google will at the same time spy on what is browsed, and control what can be watched.

    • xDoritox
    • 3 years ago

    Google hasn’t updated Chrome’s look in years, I know they keep tweaking and improving the underlying infrastructure, but we want some cosmetic changes to the browser, too.
    I’d like to see Tab stacking and a Grid-style window for bookmarks instead of the default drop down menu. And most importantly, make Chrome even faster and more efficient.

    • strangerguy
    • 3 years ago

    This is comes as a surprisingly pleasant but rude shock since Google is the easily the *least* likely organization to ever support adblocking.

    • kmieciu
    • 3 years ago

    I never used any ad-blocker. If a site uses ads that annoy me then I simply go to another site. Taming ads is a site admin job not mine.

      • BIF
      • 3 years ago

      They’re ruining the internet with hard-to-dismiss pictures of ingrown tumors, pus-filled sores, deformed toenails. And the last straw is having Kim Kardashian’s overweight cottage cheese butt shoved in my face all day.

      I say to hell with ’em all. It’s Adblock Pro for me. I’ll donate to sites like TR, but as long as I have some control, I’ll use whatever technology I can get my hands on to prevent popups and autoplaying videos of that nasty toe-jam and cheesy butts.

      Oh and the one with the banana with a skeleton inside it? WTF? Chiquita should sue their asses off!

    • dikowexeyu
    • 3 years ago

    We already have ad blockers. Google will now not just spy on us, but also decide what is “acceptable” for us to see.

    • jihadjoe
    • 3 years ago

    Google is one of the biggest ad networks, so it’s in their interest that people don’t block ads.

    What makes someone go get an ad-blocker? Annoying ads.

    Building an ad-blocker into Chrome that gets rid of the most annoying ads while letting non-intrusive, compliant ads through is good for Google (and other compliant ad networks) because people are less likely to install a third party ad-blocker that removes everything.

      • floodo1
      • 3 years ago

      This. Google isn’t making a general ad blocker here, they are making a blocker that blocks their competitors who are willing to show annoying ads. This helps google directly by affecting their competitors but also indirectly because with an annoying-ad-blocker built right into chrome users will be less likely to download an ad blocker extension which might be blocking googles own ads!

    • not@home
    • 3 years ago

    I have been crusading against intrusive ads for at least 15 years. My standards may be a bit more strict than the average person, but reasonable ads seem rare and bad ads turn me off completely for all ads. Something has to be done. I don’t know if Google is the right one to do anything about it (lots of foreseeable problems), but where do we start? Government regulation would be even worse. Ad blocking and script blocking is very imperfect, for both the user and the websites that get their revenue from ads. What can be done? This is an honest question, and I would really like a good discussion/brainstorm about it.

    • drfish
    • 3 years ago

    If Google blocks ads in Chrome, then only outlaws will block non-Google ads.

    Or something like that…

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      Only the ad networks will block ads.

    • Stochastic
    • 3 years ago

    FYI, Opera already has built-in ad-blocking.

    • tsk
    • 3 years ago

    Step 1: Built in ad-blocker so people won’t install third party ones
    Step 2: Allow google AdSense
    Step 3: Profit

      • tacitust
      • 3 years ago

      If they did that to the detriment of other ad networks with non-intrusive ads, the EU regulators would put a stop to it pretty quickly. They will probably be sued by ad networks who do specialize in more intrusive ads anyway, but I believe Google has plenty of incentive to create a level playing field.

    • south side sammy
    • 3 years ago

    If I could just figure out a way to block gstatic I’d have this site licked.

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 3 years ago

      Are you really bragging about blocking ads on TR… in TR’s comments? What a weasel.

        • Redocbew
        • 3 years ago

        +1 for weasel.

    • davidbowser
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<]non-compliant content includes autoplaying video ads with sound[/quote<] Am I missing something? Isn't this this the type of ads that Youtube runs?

      • ludi
      • 3 years ago

      Are you referring to the ads embedded in the video content, which play when the user requests a video stream?

      This here is talking about ads on other types of pages that just start playing audio or video out of the clear blue sky, with the user having done nothing but load the page.

        • davidbowser
        • 3 years ago

        Got it. I admit I was totally confused by that. I only unblock ads for sites that I use often and get value from, so I don’t really see that many intrusive ads.

        In my defense, I have an AWFUL problem with youtube ads (I DON’T block them) where they play the same ad for a local Lexus dealership regardless of how many times I use the option for “repetitive” or “not relevant”.

          • tacitust
          • 3 years ago

          Your fault for not being in a demographic that is of interest to online advertisers, I’m afraid 🙂

          • odizzido
          • 3 years ago

          Yeah they’re really bad. Best way to watch youtube videos these days is to mute them by default, load the ones you’re interested in and let them play in the background, then come back to them later, press unmute and replay.

    • GrimDanfango
    • 3 years ago

    It’s a worrying point when you start to regard Facebook and Amazon as the plucky underdogs trying to survive against an oppressor bent on world domination.

      • tacitust
      • 3 years ago

      I’m not even close to that point yet.

      • Firestarter
      • 3 years ago

      when Amazon coughs half the internet stops dead in its tracks

        • GrimDanfango
        • 3 years ago

        Hmm, yeah, maybe I was a tad hasty putting Amazon on that list… they’re probably not too far off even competition with Google in the bid for the “Supreme Emperor of Humanity and all its collective private thoughts” position.

          • MOSFET
          • 3 years ago

          [quote<]"Supreme Emperor of Humanity and all its collective private thoughts" position[/quote<] With a title like that, MS and Apple must be licking their lips to get a piece. And Zuckerberg is probably licking something else.

          • jihadjoe
          • 3 years ago

          What do you think Google is doing all this data collection and research into AI is for? Soon we will become unnecessary because Google will have so much data, and their AI will be so good it can just simulate us.

    • Kougar
    • 3 years ago

    If Google implements this in Chrome then I don’t see how they will avoid someone taking them to court over it for ‘predatory marketing practices’. Which would imply that Google isn’t worried about it for one reason or another…

      • GrimDanfango
      • 3 years ago

      Google probably have enough harvested private information to silence any judge and jury on Earth at this point.

      • steelcity_ballin
      • 3 years ago

      Not sure I agree – not a lawyer but Chrome is their product. I’m not sure they’re obligated to support 3rd party extensions if they choose not to. The PR damage alone would probably prevent this scenario though. Folks would just choose Firefox or whatever.

        • Kougar
        • 3 years ago

        It’s not an issue of third party extensions, it’s an issue of market dominance with Google playing as both player and referee.

        Google’s ad revenue is larger than the entire rest of the market combined, $9.5 billion in Q3. Now consider that Chrome has a >50% browser market share on desktops, and again >50% on mobile. In summation the largest ad service company in the industry just announced it would be blocking most ads on its market dominant product.

        Even if Google was completely clear about what criteria its blocker uses for ads, Google will still hold an advantage because it knows best how to optimize ads to avoid its own ad blocker. And even with an ad blocker installed in Chrome “blocking everything” Google can still use personal data acquired through its browser and various interconnected services to its advantage, something all the small fry ad companies in the market don’t have to fall back upon.

      • TwistedKestrel
      • 3 years ago

      I was gonna ask, is there an antitrust lurking in the shadow of this move?

        • tacitust
        • 3 years ago

        Not if Google can demonstrate they are (a) providing clear set of criteria ad networks can follow to ensure their ads will not be blocked, and (b) they are enforcing those criteria in a strictly level playing field.

        I have no doubt there will be lawsuits from ad networks who disagree with what Google considers to be intrusive advertising, and the EU regulators will likely be keeping a very close eye on this (Trump and his cohorts won’t care), but I doubt Google would even attempt this if they didn’t believe they can prevail over any lawsuits and regulatory oversight.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 3 years ago

        Wowa there, are you suggesting regulation of private enterprise?

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 3 years ago

    I understand that sites need money and advertisements is the typical method of generating revenue. What I cannot stand is advertisements that suck down power. It is not uncommon for me to hop on my wife’s laptop and see 40% CPU taken up from the bajillions of tabs she has open. And you can’t really trust ad blockers, as the article points out.

    I run NoScript (with TR, Phoronix, and a few choice other sites allowed to run scripts not from their domain) to prevent this. Check your favorite major news site and see just how many scripts are run… YIKES! I’m cool with enforcing a standard, so long that it includes limiting CPU. I find the conflict of interest in this, though, disturbing.

    • steelcity_ballin
    • 3 years ago

    Google’s entire business model is predicated on ad revenue. Chrome is a google product. Chrome currently supports 3rd party extensions that, among other things, block ads. Chrome is a popular browser, it has a majority of users.

    Knowing these things, here’s a few ways I see this playing out.

    A) Chrome implements ad-blocking, and in the most aggressive scenario, lets say that it blocks 100% of ads flawlessly. Their revenue is unaffected (unlikely). This opens the doors for the ad-buyers to say, “what can we do to get our ads back in chrome?”. Beyond just money they’ll pay, benevolent google tells them they must adhere to this reform on ad-content. Now ads are subtle, non-interfering, incapable of injecting spyware, and all is well. Google has revenue again, ads are impressed subtly and without abuse, and users feel safe and content knowing they are supporting the sites they patron without worrying about unsafe browsing habits and broken page layouts etc. Everyone wins!

    B) A more realistic/pessimistic view. Chrome continues to dominate the market share of browsers. They implement ad-blocking. They take a hit initially, but then once the harumph dies down, they disable any ad-blocking software in their extensions library and update the ToS to forbid them. They then start allowing select ad buyers in and the cycle begins anew, etc now if you’re using chrome you cannot block the ads.

    C) As a side effect to either, perhaps ad scripters get more inventive and malicious and find new and clever ways to get around Chrome’s block. Like, I dunno, paying your ISP directly to inject their ad content into the request/response stream directly, circumventing any chance you have of blocking it because it’s not being requested in the first place. Comcast among other ISPs already does this, albeit with their own products and services, but what’s stopping them from pimping out this direct access ad content? HTTPS everything is vitally important.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 3 years ago

      I think scenario A would result in lawsuits.

        • Farting Bob
        • 3 years ago

        It seems like something an antitrust would fuck them over for. An ad company blocking all other ads except their own, then charging other ad companies to be allowed back in.

      • DoomGuy64
      • 3 years ago

      I like A, but think it will be more like B.

      The best way to implement ads is to host them directly on a site, as long as they aren’t obtrusive. This way ads can’t be blocked as easily, and that forces the site owner to maintain some level of QA.

      Opera has an ad blocker built into the browser, chrome is coming along, and everyone else has other features like extension support. The days of excessive advertisement are numbered.

      • Stiqy
      • 3 years ago

      If Google abuses their own system… they simply create a market for Edge, or Opera and Firefox to resurge. They will have to play it carefully. (or to put it another way, if Chrome’s ad-blocking isn’t something consumers actually want, or is forced upon them, there are other browsers….)

        • Freon
        • 3 years ago

        Are users going to switch to Edge because Chrome’s built-in ad block is blocking too much stuff?

        I don’t think so.

          • DoomGuy64
          • 3 years ago

          How about breaking stuff? Some sites might not work correctly, which would indeed cause users to switch.

          Long time ago I installed noscript + FF on someone’s PC who kept getting into trouble using IE. They simply went back when some of their ad riddled sites quit working. Needless to say I told them if they got another virus I wasn’t going to help them anymore. Modern broswers might be able to handle their browsing habits now, but back then they didn’t. Anyway, the point is breaking compatibility will cause people to switch. I don’t even use noscript myself anymore, as there were a few things that it never handled correctly and it was too much of a pain to keep using.

            • Froz
            • 3 years ago

            Noscript is not an ad-blocker.

            If any site doesn’t work correctly with Chrome, people will first complain to the site, not to google. And the site will have to change or it will risk losing noticeable part of the views it has.

          • Stiqy
          • 3 years ago

          um, no, you have it backwards. The danger of Google controlling both ad blocking and the largest advertising revenue stream in the world is that they WON’T block their specific ads on their browser.

          If Google abuses their system by allowing “safe” ads through (i.e. ads google is essentially paid not to block / and also diables other blockers) then people will switch to another browser that doesn’t have a conflict of interest and allows plugins to block everything.

          I didn’t think I’d have to spell it out.

          If Google tries to profit by letting their ads through, then Opera and Firefox use will resurge as users can easily switch to very good alternatives. The market will keep Google honest. They have to balance their desire to show ads with people’s tolerance – or people will simply leave Chrome.

      • Jubijub
      • 3 years ago

      (disclaimer : I work in this industry, on the advertiser side)

      I see a scenario D) Their ad blocker will follow the rules of Coalition for Better ads (https://www.betterads.org/members/ ), which is an industry group trying to bake some sense into advertising practices. Interestingly you will find Google and Facebook are both members, along with at least one major media group, and some key advertisers, as well as other ad industry associations (IAB, etc…). This means it won’t filter all ads at all, but only the ones deemed “bad” (read : intrusive, such as popup ads described here [url<]https://www.betterads.org/standards/[/url<] ). Note that since this is an industry wide group, google is protected from attacks on abuse of dominant position, since they would allow any advertiser that follow the rules (and their biggest competitor is part of it, so I'd say pretty safe). That will de facto filter ads on shitty website that abuse ad placement. So it will be a mild filter, and I believe google bets that it is better to lose x% of their market now to save the 100-x % by controlling ad blocking. The bet if that if you filter only "bad"ads, people will be OK to keep seeing "better" ads. The industry right now is shit scared by the rise of adblocker (in some markets and some key demographics, you can account for 70% of the people equiped with blockers that block ALL ads), so my sense is that google bets on x being lower than 70 % 🙂 My personal view is that this is a good move, because blocking ALL ads is not sustainable (ask TR owners here how the site would survive without ads), so this sounds like a reasonable trade off.

        • slowriot
        • 3 years ago

        This slope is so slippery.

        • Beahmont
        • 3 years ago

        Yeah… You’re off your rocker.

        Whether it’s Google, the Coalition for Better Ads, or any other industry group is irrelevant to the most basic right of individual users to determine what is and isn’t an intrusive ad.

        Your industry has show a huge disinterest in self-regulation as long as the money flows in. Doing what you talk about and giving complete control over what is a ‘bad’ ad back to the people who created the problem in the first place is beyond stupid, because as soon as your industry has complete control over what is and isn’t displayed to users again you’ll stop giving a damn and let things get right back where they were before the rise of ad blockers. Only this time you’ll have complete control to prevent the implementation of a new generation of ad blockers so things will get worse and not get better for a long time.

        Just say no to foxes guarding hen houses and corporate self-regulation. It never works.

          • Jubijub
          • 3 years ago

          I’ve been doing this job since a year and a half, so it is not really MY industry 🙂

          I still have a lot of trouble understanding why people can enjoy “free”web so much without caring how it is financed.

          Taking again TR as an exemple :
          – bandwidth is not free
          – servers are not free
          – engineering time to build the site is not free
          – journalists time to write articles is not free

          Today, and similarly to many sites, ads pay for this so you can enjoy this for free. If ads stop I will still have a job so I don’t really care, but I guess when people are going to realize that TR, Facebook, Twitter, etc… stop working because there is no money, they are going to reconsider their stance towards ads.

          This doesn’t mean that ads shouldn’t be done in a thoughtful way, and that the industry hasn’t shitted the drapes by doing a complete mess over the last y ears with super invasive ads. But while ad industry, as you say, shouldn’t have the power the decide what is good or bad, so shouldn’t the users. Because as a user, your best interest is to have 0 ads (lonqer bandwidth consumed, faster load time, less visual clutter). yet if every user does that, there is no free web anymore.
          And don’t come with “oh but you can whitelist sites”: out of the installed base, how many people genuinely whitelist sites they like ?

        • Stiqy
        • 3 years ago

        The industry should be scared, because nobody has ever really wanted ads. Ads have “worked” in the past and companies could use them to artificially and lazily create a market because systems were put in place and allowed companies to force ads on people. The only reason ads exist is because we couldn’t stop them being put in front of our face. (on TV, on billboards, in magazines, etc)

        As soon as we had the option 70% of us have turned them completely off. What does that tell you? Few people want to see any ad at all. The whole industry has to adjust itself to a new reality… you can’t just create a product or service and blanket the media with a few million dollars in advertising. companies will still survivied, people will still buy things, (as if we would stop spending money), the economy will continue… but the half-century reign of advertising as the lazy medium of driving demand is almost over.

        Thank-you Adblocker and Netflix. You finally killed print and TV advertising.

        The last bastion of advertising will be billboards, bus shelters, and the boundaries of various sports fields.

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 3 years ago

          You write this on a website paid for by ads, on an internet dominated by sites which are paid for by ads. Off the net, the collapse of respectable news is driven by ad revenue rot, leaving all the mind space to be occupied by sources powered on ideology. How can you be so pleased by the situation?

          Adjust to a new reality you say.

            • Stiqy
            • 3 years ago

            Just because you can’t see the new reality doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

            Netflix proved their was another model for video content besides 25 minutes of ads every hour.

            There may be some form of tolerable advertising still around. In the case of sites like this, the “weekly deals” articles, and the subtle inline links to purchase the items that are being discussed or reviewed from an online store are generally fine. Ther are other ways that sites can adjust their site and their community in ways that their value is expressed in ***desirable*** ways.

            The market will prove what works and what doesn’t.

          • Jubijub
          • 3 years ago

          And we absolutely agree : if you let people decide, they don’t want ads. But they also like free web, so how does that work ?

          Netflix is paid by subscription : this is clearly a workable model, although how many people would use TR if it were subscription based ?

          Spotify for instance, is also subscription based, but also not profitable. It is always relevant to understand where the money comes from, to see if the model is sustainable.

          Ask the millions of startup that failed on paid models : if you ask, everyone is willing to pay a little something to get an ad free service. Launch said service, and realize that there is a gap between saying and doing 🙂 (you and I seem to be willing to pay subscription for premium quality, but this is far from being the norm online).
          I would very much like subscription to work widely as it is a great model (it’s fair, it’s scalable, it’s non intrusive, but in reality web in the ’00 and apps in the ’10s have taught people that “digital” is free. It will require some change management to make that change. Working in that industry on the adtech side (I provide such tools to marketers), I am always amazed how many people still get shocked when they realize 3rd party data profiling is done when they browse, and that this is selling qualified advertising space that make it profitable. I had no idea how clueless people are on how the internet is financed.

            • Stiqy
            • 3 years ago

            “Ask the millions of startup that failed on paid models : if you ask, everyone is willing to pay a little something to get an ad free service. Launch said service, and realize that there is a gap between saying and doing 🙂 ”

            No, there is a gap between the actual value they offered and the price they charged. If something is desireable enough, people will pay for it if its not available by any othe rmeans. Market rule.

            If a million little blog sites, even pretty good ones, like TR die over this… it just shows that people never really needed a million little blog sites where they could read the exact same news articles, sprinkled in with one or two actual unique contant items.

            If TR goes away, my life doesn’t dramatically change… I imagine eventually, if I decide as a hobbiest that I really need a solid source of actual unique tech content and unbiased reviews… and nothing else cheaper scratches that itch (because the blog apocaplypse you predict has happened – I for one, doubt it) then I will pay for it at that time. I pay for other subscriptions and fees that relate to my work, or other areas of my life in recreation and entertainment and interests… why wouldn’t I here? Make a compelling case for teh value of your content and I’ll buy it… so far the case has not been compelling in comparison to what is currently available, the market has proven that.

            All this collapse would show is that there has been a very wide, and very thin skin of weak content paid for by slim ad revenues, nade possible by next-to-zero content distribution costs (thank you internet). A lot of plucky people are trying to “make a go of it” in that thin margin… and yup, millions of them will fail. That’s just because they are trying to deliver a product that at the end of the day isn’t really all that valuable.

            If there is a point at which enough people need or desire the content you have, and you deliver it with quality on a consistent basis… guess what, people will pay for it.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            You’re way too confident in the wisdom of the market.

            [quote<]If TR goes away, my life doesn't dramatically change... I imagine eventually, if I decide as a hobbiest that I really need a solid source of actual unique tech content and unbiased reviews... and nothing else cheaper scratches that itch (because the blog apocaplypse you predict has happened - I for one, doubt it) then I will pay for it at that time. I pay for other subscriptions and fees that relate to my work, or other areas of my life in recreation and entertainment and interests... why wouldn't I here? Make a compelling case for teh value of your content and I'll buy it... so far the case has not been compelling in comparison to what is currently available, the market has proven that.[/quote<] Just because some theory of free markets said all that in school doesn't mean that society isn't harmed when long-term investments and expertise can't be sustained. These things don't reappear just when you decide its time to research your next computer. You can't assume that anything that survives is helpful, and anything that perishes was unworthy. I can't even watch TV news these days, such garbage, but it is adapting to conditions, and arguably poisoning society in the process. A reliable stream of ad revenue would go a long ways towards supporting professional standards over clickbait in all areas of journalism.

      • tacitust
      • 3 years ago

      A) There would be instant EU regulatory action if Google charged companies to be whitelisted. Otherwise, a hopeful scenario.

      B) Google is not going to start blocking other ad blocking software, because lawsuits and again, antitrust regulatory action from the EU. Impossible to suddenly argue that ad blocker extensions are harmful after being ubiquitous for many years.

      C) The arms race with the ad scripters will continue, for sure, though many of the sites that go to great lengths to circumvent ad blockers have already had to make themselves virtually unusable already. Not sure how many tricks they have left. I suspect they’ll simply resort to denying access until you whitelist their site instead.

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      I think you are right, but I think B or C are going to be the outcomes.

      I currently adblock and popup block on Chrome

      [i<]"but Chrome already has built-in popup blocking"[/i<] Indeed it does, and scripters get around it with ease. It's very nearly completely useless, much like I suspect Chrome's adblock will be.

        • Shobai
        • 3 years ago

        Blasmephy*!

        *Unless you whitelist TR, of course.

          • Chrispy_
          • 3 years ago

          I don’t need to whitelist TR.

          Adblock plus isn’t about blocking all ads, it’s about preventing obnoxious ads. 75% of ads still get through Adblock Plus by default, and TR uses advertisers that abide by [url=https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads<]Adblock's Acceptable-ads[/url<] rules, and thus make the automatic whitelist.

      • Vaughn
      • 3 years ago

      Very good points Steelcity.

      I’ll stick to blocking ads at the router level!

    • derFunkenstein
    • 3 years ago

    [quote<] Either way, we'd encourage readers to whitelist TR in their ad blockers. You'll find we run ads that are already plenty acceptable by any standard.[/quote<] This is a big reason why your readers are so loyal, along with the content. Contrast it with unresponsive pages on Twerktown and even full-page countdown-timed ads on big names like Forbes and it's no wonder that people block them. TR always gets the big green thumbs up in AdBlock on my systems. It's a shame that sites that run those seriously intrusive and annoying ads haven't figured out the same thing.

      • kvndoom
      • 3 years ago

      If the whole of the internet was as classy as TR we wouldn’t need ad blockers in the first place.

      • jihadjoe
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]Contrast it with unresponsive pages on Twerktown[/quote<] LIES! I went to twerktown.com and it was a very clean and simple layout without a single ad. [url=http://i.imgur.com/50EsTn7.png<]Screenshot[/url<] for proof.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This