If Microsoft was heavily fined for installing their own browser in their operating system, how is an advertising company like Google using their browser, which has the largest market share, to block competing ads not the same thing?!
> it will be blocking all ads from sites where even one ad displayed on the site doesn’t meet those standards, even if the rest are technically in compliance.
Which can be interpreted as : "only run Google ads, if you use other platforms and we don't like even one of their ads we will block all your ad revenue."
Is it just me or the web is becoming more fragmented than ever: First the Safari intelligent anti tracking stuff, then Firefox's delayed loading and now this. Things will break is subtle ways.
It's good on long term. The infestation of ad is really really bad. My mother and my girlfriend can hardly browse the web anymore.
We've seen examples of ad blockers becoming problematic when they have too much market share (AdBlock Plus).
There are better options out there that (currently) give you fine-grain control over what goes into your machine, so there is pretty much no reason to give over that control to a corrupt group.
My parents don't need fine controls. They just need something to block most of the malware, adware and popups. That's the world we live in.
I don't mind a few unobtrusive ads. I really do mind those stupid ad overlays, ads that unroll themselves on top of the content I'm trying to read, and "scroll here for more" junk.
I aggressively install ad blocks and add domains to /etc/hosts to prevent having to remotely reinstall OSes every couple months.
These are the people google is trying to help with this move, imo. Because ublock still breaks pieces of the web, but they can't be trusted to browse the web without it.
No, adblock has been around for a while now, this is just throwing around frivolous claims in an attempt at faux-intellectualism.
The internet is not going to end any more than it did when we put a stop to X-10 popup ads.
Their goals are not really anti-competitive. The point of this feature is to stop the bleed from ad blocking extensions and alternative browsers which are the real threat to their business.
But there is no way for them to do this that doesn't end up looking really bad.
Probably they know it will get shut down eventually, but it will take years to happen, so worth it.
One could make the argument that by putting a web browser in Windows, Microsoft was only providing a common service to their default OS. The problem here is that Google makes almost all its revenue from the very medium that they are now actively blocking from other providers.
That doesn't change the anticompetitive nature of their behavior but it does explain the motivation.
This is using large scale marketshare in one market to effect a tangible and monetary benefit in another market.
1) Users say they block ads because they are annoying, rather than any deeper philosophical arguments about the nature of advertising
2) Users tend not to bother with white-listing and just use the defaults - i.e. block all ads, even Google!
3) Once they have used an ad-blocker, users are very resistant to browsing the web without one
4) Users who ad-block are among the most educated and tech-savvy, and as such are a valuable demographic to miss out on
5) Ad-block use is growing steadily with no signs of slowing
So, Google's provocative and somewhat desperate move is an attempt to gain control of ad-blocking before it becomes a serious threat to their business, even in the face of serious backlash. I hope they fail.
That's true villainy right there, how dare they! /s
1) As you pointed out - Users (or their friends) will go out of their way to install an ad-blocker and set it up the first time.
2) If I still find prominently placed Google ads annoying (and I do, despite the fact that they're not animated or audible), then I will still go out of my way to block them.
BTW, the Coalition for Better Ads has many members [0], including Facebook and other big ads providers.
I'm personally not convinced this will solve the issue, but I believe it's a least a step in the right direction.
Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
[0] https://www.betterads.org/mobile-ad-density-higher-than-30/
The argument I see for this: because it's a group Google, an ad seller, is part of deciding what ads are allowed and then Google blocking violating ads. Arguably, by pairing standards with blocking, the Coalition for Better Ads, including Google, are jointly engaging in a combination in restraint of trade.
An anti-competitive action doesn't become less anti-competitive when instead of one actor with dominant marketshare, you add additional incumbent actors in the market into the decision process and make it an agreement to restrict what products are acceptable to sell and actively block other products in that category.
On the internet, there isn't anything, it's the wild west. It can't hurt to get some minimal standards, doesn't matter where it comes from as long as it's enforced.
Which is key. Television ad regulations aren't set – and enforced – by the dominant advertisement broker.
Internet is young. There will be some regulations and standards, eventually.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising#Display_ads
Boy, I don't. Ask yourself why this is not an extension instead (even if installed by default)? Also, where can I download this ad list? Why do you believe lack of transparency is a step in the right direction? You really believe that the perpetrators are the best enforcers?
"Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct." [1]
"Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified" [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
It's not anti-competitive just because you don't like it.
Google is leveraging Chrome's dominant market position to (potentially) harm their competitors in an unrelated market.
You were always able to install Firefox or Chrome on Windows, but Microsoft was fined for using their dominant market position (Windows) to push a product in an unrelated market (web browsers).
It's about what the average user is aware of. Google just decided to have the majority of computer and smartphone users be opted in to an ad blocker that, of course, won't block Google ads.
The Microsoft comparison doesn't apply at all.
The standard is defined here:
https://www.betterads.org/standards/
The committe membership is defined her:
https://www.betterads.org/members/
Note it does include Google, as well as Microsoft, Facebook, the Washington Post, Unilever & others.
Far from a "Google" thing, this seems an attempt for an industry to police itself.
Given the ad experiences I've seen on many sites, if anything it's overdue.
Because people in HN do have double standards when it comes to Microsoft vs Google.