back to article Google says ad blockers will save online ads

Google - the world's largest online ad broker - sees no reason to worry about the addition of ad-blocking extensions to its Chrome browser. Online advertisers will ensure their ads aren't too annoying, the company says, and netizens will ultimately realize that online advertising is a good thing. "We think about this a lot at …


This topic is closed for new posts.


  1. A J Stiles

    Another possibility

    All this overlooks the very real possibility that ISPs could start offering their own advert-blocking services.

    For, say, an extra tenner a month, subscribers would get a restricted, "walled garden" subset of the Internet -- with no access to advert servers. Took me just minutes to set up an experimental version, using a Squid proxy and a doctored BIND configuration, and it works quite well -- even having a "21:00 watershed".

    It's also completely browser- and platform-agnostic, with no software to download, since everything is done upstream of the client: as far as you're concerned, the advert servers simply do not exist.

    1. Richard Porter

      An extra tenner a month?

      Sorry, but I don't pay a tenner a month! I'm not going to pay to exclude ads - I can ignore them perfectly well. I didn't notice the Shell one so I don't know what all the fuss is about.

  2. Matthew 3


    I use Opera's 'block content' context menu and have gradually built up a list so exhaustive that it is rare for an advert to get in my way. The only ones which tend to slip through are text-based and frankly that doesn't bother me.

    The comments above about Shell are interesting - I had to unblock a site just to see what the fuss was about!

    Just as popup ads were (mostly) removed by the evolution of automatically-updated default web browsers (yes, I'm thinking of IE here) it is likely that some future version will eventually include adblocking - Microsoft don't care about enhancing Google's revenue stream after all. So even the lazy will probably get mopped up eventually.

  3. Graham Marsden

    "Online advertisers will ensure their ads aren't too annoying,"


    Oh yeah, like if that was ever going to happen in these days of AdBlock Plus it would have *already* happened!

    I read in forums about people on Facebook complaining about one ad for smilies that if you accidentally rolled your mouse over would yell "HELLO!" through your speakers. Of course every one of them wants to know how to stop that happening again and they get the same answer: Firefox and ABP.

    Way to lose customers guys!!

  4. Inachu

    They are already too annoying!

    The ads that drop down to 10% of the screen so I am unable to read the article?


    Or the water mark adverstisement that bleeds over the article I read but can seee though it.


    The ad that starts off the advertisements with them talking instead of muted.


    Dual advertisements on the same page one being the video on the left and the

    small square box on the right.


    Drug advertisements about drugs I have never ever used and will never use.


    The woman who stands up and speaks as if she is part of the website and not inside

    a normal video.


    Fat people who adverstise for us to donate money to help starving children.

    YES I BANNED YOU because our money keeps you fat and keeps the child starving.

  5. Anonymous Coward

    Way to turn good news into a forecast of bad news...

    I don't know, this sounds a lot like El Reg trying to incessantly question Google in its usual fashion. Just because most people take Google's ‘do no evil’ nonsense too seriously doesn't mean that we should respond by reading evil into everything Google does. Honestly, regardless of Google's annoying sanctimony, they are allowing ad blockers, so people who care enough can install them. Case closed, as far as I can see, and it's amazing to me how - without further research - the author manages to find anything more to say that's credible, nevermind whether negative or positive.

    Sure, the Internet isn't like newspapers or TV or whatever, but advertising is still a good way of generating revenue (and some sites, such as El Reg, can't be run without a stable revenue stream); this is particularly true in today’s freetarded world, where subscriptions are taken to be the mother of all evils.

    It's a bit paternalistic, to say the least, to expect Google to make their ad services opt-in rather than opt-out, citing the general inertia and ignorance of the regular computer user as a reason. What do they need to do, publicise the ad blockers in a pop-up that appears whenever you open Chrome? Don't be daft. People who get really annoyed by ads and yet don't bother to find out whether or not those ads can be blocked, well, they kind of deserve to be in a state of annoyance, don't you think? And as for people who aren’t annoyed by ads, well, that's entirely their own business, and if they’re subsidising my Google Mail account then more power to them.

    All this what-if scaremongery about Google’s potential decisions once Chrome gains a potential but unlikely dominating market share could just be a sign that El Reg is just really, really annoyed with Google, and maybe with good reason. It could be that Google is just blanking any queries for information on future plans which, I'm sure, the author of this piece was diligent enough to make.

    Notice how I used ‘could be’ there, which is a traditional way of presenting very strong claims without calling them fact, and hence evading any real need to back them up in any way. Re-read the above piece to see this technique used to great effect. This is a well-known tabloid technique (‘Homosexuals could be the cause of AIDS!’ Hey, it’s not like we’re saying they ARE, we’re just saying they COULD be). This is a very dangerous technique, because as we all know the average user of the Internet cannot be relied upon to distinguish fact from fiction and tends to accept any baseless opinion as long as its stated with a sufficient air of authority.

    Hence, I demand that the Register makes its speculative claims an opt-in rather than opt-out service, in order to protect the fragile minds of other computer users who are lazier and not as savvy as I. How dare El Reg suggest that lopsided and lazy reportage will sort itself out in the long run when people desert the news sources involved? We need it to be sorted out right now, by making such reportage strictly opt-in. Oh wait, there isn’t even a way to opt out yet. Speculative claim blocker for Chrome, anyone? What a joke.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fuck off Schmuck, and your Torvalds soundalike sidekick.

    The only way advertising could get so 'less annoying' I wouldn't want to block it would be if it were to go away completely and never be found.

  7. Fluffykins Silver badge

    Interesting coincidence

    That this article was sharing the page with yet another fscking animated Jaguar advert.

    Jaguar were once had th eimage of an upmarket car manufacturer. Not any more.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    forgotten what onlineads were

    I've used adblock for ages to the extent I'd forgotten what online ads were. Just got a T-mobile Pulse (android based) phone and started browising using its web-browser and wsa taken by surprise by ads appearing everywhere! Now investigating android ad-blockers!

  9. sean123456

    Adblock Plus is brilliant

    I regard Adblock Plus as the number one best and most revolutionary piece of software of the last decade. But I've been genuinely surprised to find that most people don't see it the same way, including people I personally recommended Adblock Plus to. They prefer to let the ads stand, apparently. This strengthens my expectation that people like me will never be forced to go back to an internet experience with advertising in it. What a wonderful world.

  10. mhenriday


    on the Chromium dev channel seems to work about as well as Adblock Plus on Firefox on my 64-bit Ubuntu Karmic setup, so one more hinder preventing me from using Chromium as my default browser has been eliminated (now if only I could get a permanent side-panel for my Delicious bookmarks !). I suggest that Linus Upson's analysis is reasonably correct in that some people, like myself will do what they can to block advertising, but most will not - not necessarily, as Cade Metz believes, because they are inherently lazy, but because they don't find the ads enough of a bother to do something about them. However, the optimistic scenario that Linus foresees - that advertisers will make their advertising less obstreperous, in order to dissuade people from blocking them - strikes me as highly unlikely ; rather, other posters have indicated, they are far more likely to attempt to make them still more pervasive. But as long as blocking tools keep pace....



This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019