> [Google executive Scott Spencer] said that less than 1% of the web’s most visited sites—under 1,000 of them—are currently out of compliance with the rules
So it's an ad blocker that doesn't block over 99% of ads?
So it's an ad blocker that doesn't block over 99% of ads?
> While the result of this action is that Chrome users will not see ads on sites that consistently violate the Better Ads Standards, our goal is not to filter any ads at all but to improve the experience for all web users. As of February 12, 42% of sites which were failing the Better Ads Standards have resolved their issues and are now passing. This is the outcome we are were hoping for — that sites would take steps to fix intrusive ads experiences themselves and benefit all web users.
Source: https://blog.chromium.org/2018/02/how-chromes-ad-filtering-w...
That said, the self-interest is palpable and makes it hard to take this seriously, akin to a bottled-water manufacturer pushing for stricter standards on the purity of tap water. In fact it seems like the fact that the standards are set by an industry coalition (of which Google is a prominent member) rather than Google itself, is the only thing keeping this from being outright antitrust, in that Google is using one of its products to restrict the activity of its competitors.
See also: The "Open" Handset "Alliance", an industry group of companies who want permission to use Google's apps, who Google will threaten to permanently ban if they dare ship a device without them: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/google-blocked-acers...