Hacker News Reader

I imagine this may irk some googlers on here, but after Hangout's effect on xmpp / Reader's on RSS, I find it hard to discount the impact a built-in Chrome ad blocker would have on other generally available blockers. A lot of major sites still allow their content to be read by adblock users today because of the volume of traffic they'd have to shut out; but I don't believe that'd be the case once they start becoming a minority.

I think that you are too naive and part of the problem why the Google has become so dominant.

I actually installed an ad-blocker because I could not stand video ads (I would call it TV-cation of the Internet) and that was the easiest way to eliminate them.

You argue that people can install another browser and use an ad-blocker with that.

This is true for now (given reasonably motivated and knowledgeable users), but Google is also pushing DRM into web browsers.

This opens a possibility to restrict access to a website to all browsers but Google one. Given their market dominance they can do this.

I'm not disagreeing that this is possible, but I don't think jumping straight to such a nightmare scenario really does any good. The reason being is that they just don't go that far and it's suddenly seems okay in comparison to what "could" happen.

More realistically, I think Google hurts other ad blockers and expands their oligarchic position in the ads space (especially on mobile).

> I'm not disagreeing that this is possible, but I don't think jumping straight to such a nightmare scenario really does any good.

Ten years ago I thought that the level of tracking and corporate surveillance we see today was a nightmare scenario. I was clearly an optimist. Don't be me.

I think that the point of GP is that we did not get here suddenly but step by step.

>I don't think jumping straight to such a nightmare scenario really does any good.

I think that is the main problem of the mainstream thinking - inability to see how multiple independent trends can interact and create new realities.

I believe that blindness, even the forced one, to such realities is one of the greatest dangers that allows these realities to develop and take almost everyone by surprise - oh, we did not see it coming.

>The reason being is that they just don't go that far and it's suddenly seems okay in comparison to what "could" happen.

Perhaps two scenarios should be presented: a catastrophic one and a one single step in the wrong direction.

If Google and Facebook use this policy to establish an oligopoly (or cement their existing one), and that allows Google and Facebook to raise advertising prices above equilibrium pricing, then that squeezes companies that wish to advertise with costs that are shifted onto consumers.

Additionally, having a Google/Facebook oligopoly hurts incumbents when Google uses its overwhelming advertising market power to give itself exclusive advertising deals in order to promote some product. Advertising monopolies can be used to prop up and establish other monopolies. The most obvious example of Google doing this is advertising Chrome on the front page of google.com.

> that allows Google and Facebook to raise advertising prices above equilibrium pricing

Maybe, but do they need to do that or do they just sit there and reap the profits of being an ever expanding proportion of the market (which is now thriving again because they killed other ad blockers). Regulators will just ignore them that way.

That's like saying antibiotics are only meant to kill the worst of one's infection. Unfortunately, there are foolish people who assume a lower dose/dosage will suffice. Even after an M.D. assesses what they need and tells them exactly what to take! Explicit warnings and education became necessary.

We have a similar problem in the "ad blocking" space. Naive users don't appreciate that there is a big difference between ad-blockers that only block "annoying" ads and ad-blockers that provide more comprehensive blocking (annoying ads and related security threats and related privacy threats). Many who want/need the stronger solution opt for the weaker solution and they are harmed by doing so. The lower efficacy "annoying ad blockers" need black box warnings.

Power is typically zero-sum. As Google gains effective monopoly power, Mozilla and others whose interests are more aligned with the public interest lose power. I could go on.

Put simply, if nobody stops using other adblockers because of this, then nothing is directly a problem. The problems come when Google uses their power to do things like block adblockers in Chrome (as they already do on Android!) and other ramifications of their power.

Anyway, adblockers aren't just about obnoxious ads. They are also about the simple fact that if I want to search for some product, I would prefer a neutral result and don't want any amount of my results to be biased toward whoever spends the most money for the privilege, and further issues with advertising in general.

> as they already do on Android!

This is exclusionary detailing, wouldn't you say? Chrome on Android doesn't have an extensions platform.

That doesn't stop you from using a local proxy to filter ad network traffic, like what Adblock Plus does on android. Adblock Plus was removed from the play store in 2013 [0].

That being said there are other browsers on android that either support extensions (like firefox) or have an adblocker built in.

[0]: https://adblockplus.org/blog/adblock-plus-for-android-remove...

Great, but irrelevant to this thread.

Which means that's an understatement of how bad the problem is.

Oh, please. Lack of an extensions platform is not evidence of an intent to suppress your specific pet extension.

Thanks for clarifying. I don't use it. I just verified by talking to others that uBlock and Firefox was possible while uBlock in Chrome on Android was not (nor was any other adblocker).

> plenty of non-Google advertisers are represented in the decision making process, to the point where one can be convinced that a variety of views were considered.

Just because they are seeking input from others doesn't mean they are the good guys. Google's opinion can change very quickly, and plenty of smaller shops can be hurt by that, even if they are offering a superior product.

This just reeks of too much potential for abuse.

That sounds nice, but there's still a conflict of interest in them owning the biggest browser, the biggest ad network and now selectively blocking. Seems like an obvious slippery slope that might not be bad at launch, but will slowly make the other ad networks (even) less competitive.

Google's approach resembles the old Microsoft "embrace and extinguish" playbook [1]. Sure users could disable Chrome adblocking and install something else, but how many will? Especially if Google builds a better adblocker (but one that coincidentally doesn't block anything Google cares about).

There's already a strong push from the security community to use Chrome over other browsers, because it's more secure. This puts Google in a very powerful position of setting the terms of the debate over web standards, web advertising, and tracking. But Google's interests are not necessary aligned with those of their users, who are also NOT their customers. I don't see why the same dynamic wouldn't play out for a Google ad-blocker.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Opposing advertising doesn't mean you have "religious objections". It's fine to disagree with people, but trying to paint them as irrational actors by comparing them to religious fanatics is disingenuous.

> plenty of non-Google advertisers are represented in the decision making process

So, it's officially a cartel.

Private entities shouldn't be regulating markets. And the biggest internet advertiser shouldn't be in the ad-blocking market.

> But doesn't it hurt the advertisers? That's not a given either

Easy scenario, I come up with a new ad style that works pretty well (worth loads). Google (et al) say no, that violates some standard we set, blocked. They just cost me a bunch of money.

> Google is in a unique place to tackle the problem of poor advertising by filtering truly bad experiences

By leveraging a leading (at least) position in search, browsers, and advertising.

If they want to drop out completely from their "Coalition for Better Ads", make it a consumer group instead, then maybe I'll trust them on this. Right now this is the type of move that really makes me agree with the author, Alphabet should be broken up.

I also wonder if they are going to punish ads that look like page content (google search) or before youtube videos.

I think you could make the case that the current idea actually makes it pretty much impossible not to screw over new companies in favour of the entrenched group (google, facebook, etc...). If you are going to be restricted to the ads google already does extremely well, why wouldn't you just go with Google?

oh, and we have the issue of Android. The vast majority of mobile users just use the browser already on the phone. That would be chrome, which will have only the ad blocker provided by Google unless they change things.

Everything we've seen about this program indicates it is implemented as a blacklist of undesirable behavior and not a whitelist of known-good as formats. For your first example, the difference between this being beneficial and problematic comes down to the guidelines in place.

Note a similar FUD argument can be made about Google's own advertising network: "if we unilaterally decide we don't like your ads or your websites we'll cut you off." Similarly for search results. Yet Google's implementation and guidelines are generally seen as reasonable, economically satisfactory, and not stifling innovation.

Also, what would be the point of dropping out of this coalition? The online ads industry is largely self-regulating, there's no federal regulator setting the rules. Instead coalitions like this one are formed which set guidelines and make standards. What point would it serve to pull out of a coalition and subject yourself to the control of your competitors for a one-time show of goodwill at the expense of long-term influence?

Maybe you don't trust self-regulation, and that's fine. Appropriate even, given how often it breaks down. But keep in mind the alternatives are either government regulation or no regulation. The advertising industry is presented with an existential challenge in the form of bad advertising and ad blockers. The closer you look at it, the more you realize this move is actually a pretty good one, all things considered.

> Everything we've seen about this program indicates it is implemented as a blacklist of undesirable behavior and not a whitelist of known-good as formats.

Here's a thing: as a user, I'd much prefer them to implement it as a whitelist. We really don't need more "innovation" in ad space - because it always means more dishonesty, more annoyance and more tracking. Ads have already maxed-out their primary feature - informing consumers about things available on the market. Everything on top of that is malicious in purpose. And I think it would be better for everyone if companies would spend money and innovation effort on improving their actual product instead.

> Also, what would be the point of dropping out of this coalition?

It would remove the obvious conflict of interest. To be clear, I'm talking about dissolving the coalition of advertisers and instead having the group agree to regulation from an outside group.

> But keep in mind the alternatives are either government regulation

and I've stated outright that I'm in favour of breaking up Google over this.

Not just this, but partly.