back to article Google: All right, screw it, from this Christmas, Chrome will block ALL adverts on dodgy sites

After the failure of last year's abusive web ad clampdown, Google will next month cut off revenue for websites that flout its rules against malicious adverts. "Starting in December 2018, Chrome 71 will remove all ads on the small number of sites with persistent abusive experiences," said Chocolate Factory product manager Vivek …

  1. steelpillow Silver badge

    It's a start

    Next, Google, you can let us block your sodding JavaScript all over the place so we can keep our privacy as well as our sanity.

    Your ever-spreading ReCaptcha is not just invasive, it's downright evil.

    Think about it: all the personal activity your scripts harvest is sold on to target the ads you are blocking. You guys are deranged.

    1. DougS Silver badge

      Re: It's a start

      Just dump Chrome, it isn't the best browser and they will obviously never protect your from ads and tracking as well as browsers made by companies that unlike Google don't get over 100%[*] of their profit from advertising.

      Over 100% because Google loses money collectively on everything that isn't advertising.

      1. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: It's a start

        "Just dump Chrome"

        That doesn't help with the new recaptcha scheme, though. What that means for me, personally, is that the web just got smaller as I won't be able to access sites that use it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's a start

        "Just dump Chrome"

        Yep Edge is faster and less slurpy anyway. It's near perfect with Ghostery and u-block Origin installed.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's a start

      That ReCaptcha is such a pain. I sometime have to go through it about 5 times before being let onto a site. A storefront, Jeez - is it a storefront or the overhang of a garage. It looks like a storefront but it could just be an advertising sign.

      However, Google don't actually sell on personal activity or personal data as far as I can tell. They just categorise users and their interests so that advertisers can target them. Unless anyone knows any difference, but I've never heard of them selling user data.

      1. Kevin Johnston

        Re: It's a start

        if you guys have an issue then spare a thought for people who are not USAians and who do not instinctively recognise all these fragments since they have never seen them other than as brief glimpses in various films.

        When they ask for a Bus what does that include? I have yet to see a Routemaster image

        1. Dave559 Bronze badge

          Re: Recaptcha

          Yeah, and I have yet to see a black cab in any of the photos when asked to identify pictures of taxis. Perhaps they are hiding behind all those yellow cars that seem to get in the way?

          It’s a horribly US-centric view of the world, and too typical of many US companies. I suppose that a significant proportion of people will know what these things are from movies, if not from real life, but that’s not really an assumption that can be global (or can it?).

      2. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: It's a start

        "However, Google don't actually sell on personal activity or personal data as far as I can tell."

        So? That's not quite as bad as selling the data outright, but it's close. However, personally speaking, that issue has no importance whatsoever. I object to Google collecting data about me without my knowledge and/or consent, regardless of what they do with that data.

  2. Tomato42 Silver badge
    Pint

    "Chrome 71 will remove all ads on the small number of sites with persistent abusive experiences,"

    persistent abusive experience?

    so... no ads on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and reddit? cool!

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Eliminate the competition

    Google announce they will begin blocking advertisements from competing ad networks. If you want to ensure you ad is seen, place it through us for a competitive fee.

    1. ratfox Silver badge

      Re: Eliminate the competition

      Yeah, I'm thinking that they have balls of steel to make that move when they seem to have such an obvious conflict of interest. It probably feels insignificant to them, but I hope their lawyers are ready for the lawsuits.

    2. LDS Silver badge

      Re: Eliminate the competition

      You have to get a DoubleClick cookie just to opt out from Google Search personalized ads....

  4. JohnFen Silver badge

    Google's definition of "abusive"

    Google's definition of "abusive ads" is a long way away from mine. Any ad that engages in user tracking or runs code browser-side are abusive in my view. As long as Google doesn't agree, their efforts in this area are completely without value to me.

    1. DavCrav Silver badge

      Re: Google's definition of "abusive"

      "Google's definition of "abusive""

      My definition of 'abusive' would pretty much include this behaviour:

      "Of course, it's more likely Chrome 71 will block nasty adverts served from outside Google's network"

      Advertising company blocks other companies' adverts. How is that possibly not an abuse of monopoly position?

  5. Florida1920 Silver badge
    Pirate

    It's out of control

    One forum I visit allows the insertion of the typical emojis. But with uBlock Origin engaged, half of them don't display. No big deal. But just to see, I turned off ad blocking and, sure enough, ads started popping up left and right. Bye-bye emojis. Google's well-intentioned fix PR stunt is too little, too late. To paraphrase Bill, "First we kill all the ads."

    1. veti Silver badge

      Re: It's out of control

      Meh. If a forum uses an ad server to insert its own bespoke emojis, rather than relying on Unicode, that's on them. Can't blame Google for that.

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: It's out of control

        Turning UBlock off will allow all blocked sites to run. The emojis and the ads don't necessarily come from the same place. UBlock allows finer grained control if you want to find which domains need to be green to get emojis without ads....

  6. Shadow Systems Silver badge

    "...draining the marketer cesspool."

    Good luck with that. You're trying to drain the latrine of shite. Time to wake up & realize the whole marketing industry is nothing BUT (butt?) shite & draining it will leave you with a giant open stinking pit. What will you fill it with? Approved ads? That's just trading one set of shite for another bunch of shite. No thanks.

  7. Jay Lenovo Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Happier? Victims

    Mosquitoes use a little local anesthetic to numb their victims before taking their meal.

    Google wants the abusive websites to do the same.

  8. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    Always looking outside

    So Google Play Store is eliminating 95% of its inventory to protect consumers? Haha, no.

    Translating Google:

    Stronger privacy protection -> Stronger protection against espionage and government oversight

    Better security -> Spew malware and host hackers but hide it from display on own web site

    Block abusive ads -> Block ads that aren't Google's

  9. oldtaku
    Meh

    Still worse than an ad blocker (by design)

    It still boggles me that so many people run without an ad blocker. It makes the entire web so much faster and cleaner, besides being safer. It's just basic hygiene.

    Of course it's just that people don't know how to install extensions and FF/Google aren't going to cripple their revenue by installing one by default.

    1. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Still worse than an ad blocker (by design)

      Because if everybody blocked adverts, websites would have no revenue from them and would either have to charge to use or stop publishing. It's a "for the greater good" thing.

      People like me, who allow some adverts to appear, help to fund the websites for everyone to use. You're welcome.

      1. Spazturtle Silver badge

        Re: Still worse than an ad blocker (by design)

        I much preferred the internet back when websites either ran off donations or where the person running the website accepted that their hobby was going to cost them money, or where they were making money from selling stuff. Websites had a value then, you had forums where discussions could go on for years, no clickbait, no sideshow websites, none of the shit we see today.

        Ads are not keeping sites free to view because those sites could never survive as pay to view because people wouldn't pay, they would find something else to do.

        1. ratfox Silver badge
          Paris Hilton

          Re: Still worse than an ad blocker (by design)

          I much preferred the internet back when websites either ran off donations or where the person running the website accepted that their hobby was going to cost them money [...] Websites had a value then [...] none of the shit we see today. Ads are not keeping sites free to view because those sites could never survive as pay to view because people wouldn't pay, they would find something else to do.

          You realize you are writing this on a website which is kept alive by ads, right?

          1. Starkoman

            Re: Still worse than an ad blocker (by design)

            Precisely -- which is why you can turn off advertising for certain web pages and sites you wish to support via add-on's like AdBlock Plus.

            You approve them so they get ad revenue. Happy.

          2. Ogi

            Re: Still worse than an ad blocker (by design)

            > You realize you are writing this on a website which is kept alive by ads, right?

            The reg also provides something of value. I am sure they can find other methods of raising the money to pay for everything if ads vanished tomorrow. Perhaps offer paid subscriptions? I am sure there is quite a number of people willing to part with a little bit of money per year for the site, in exchange for not having all the tracking and adverts.

            I remember once upon a time (when Bitcoin was brand new), there was an idea for a browser plugin, where you would "top up" your account with some BTC, then sites that would like you to pay to access/subscribe would prompt you with a request for $x amount, which you could accept or deny. If you accepted the amount was automatically deducted from your account and sent to the sites BTC address, and access granted (and you could save the site, so in future it would not prompt you unless the price/terms changed).

            The "micropayment" model was to be a replacement for the ad-based model. Bitcoin now is too expensive in transaction fees to send a few pennies to a site for access, but I actually think the idea isn't a bad one.

            In exchange for not being tracked and having ads shoved down my throat, I can pay some money to the site from my wallet, without having to keep signing up and sending my payment details all over the place. You could even set it up to be "per access" payment, or just a standing order for a subscription to as much access as you want.

            1. Patrician

              Re: Still worse than an ad blocker (by design)

              I agree completely, I really wish websites would give me the choice of a micro-payment or accept ads. It would be a micro-payment every time and if I didn't think the site was worth that I wouldn't go there.

              1. JohnFen Silver badge

                Re: Still worse than an ad blocker (by design)

                "I really wish websites would give me the choice of a micro-payment or accept ads."

                I pay money to some sites that offer the choice, but I've seen too many sites the just say "pay money to not see the ads". That doesn't address me issue, and unless there's clarification beyond that, it won't get me to pay money.

                What I want in exchange for paying money is for the site to ensure that they aren't tracking me. Even that is irritating, as it amounts to extortion, but that's the world we live in now.

      2. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: Still worse than an ad blocker (by design)

        "websites would have no revenue from them and would either have to charge to use or stop publishing."

        Not true. If a site wants to make money, there is a whole spectrum of ways to do that without abusing their readers by exposing them to the internet advertising industry.

        "It's a "for the greater good" thing."

        I disagree. I think that it's the exact opposite of that. It's perpetuating and encouraging something that is actively harming the web and its users.

    2. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Still worse than an ad blocker (by design)

      "It still boggles me that so many people run without an ad blocker."

      Well lots of them use Android and Google doesnt allow effective advert blockers in the Play Store. You have to go install block-this.com manually.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What about fake virus warnings on Android...

    that simulate system warnings that link to dodgy antivirus/cleaner apps served up by AppNexus?

    REDACTED_DECODED_BASE_64_SAMPLE_rd..nym1-ib\.\adnxs\.\com

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/23/adnxs-tracking-trackers-cookies-web-monitoring

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Walled gardens

    Keep nasties IN as well....

  12. mark l 2 Silver badge

    If ads were limited to just text and photos like in the early days of internet advertising then I would have no problem with browsing without an ad blocker as I see that no different than reading a newspaper or magazine that has ads along side of articles. But that would be too simple for the ad men, they want flashy animations, autoplaying videos, and javascript which slow down the browser. So I have to block them all.

    If Google would concentrate on it's own ad networks rather than trying to use Chrome as a way to block competitors networks, by offering an option to be shown only text and photo ads then I would be happier to switch off the ad blocker.

    I also take umbridge with websites that I am already paying for their services through a subscription or other fees that also slap ads on their site.

    Ebay is a particularly cheeky one. If your a business seller on there you pay a monthly fee to have an account, and then they charge you listing fees, final value fees and pay for extras such as scheduled listing start times. But even after creaming all these fees from you they still feel they need to plaster the ebay site full of ads for competitors products and services on the pages that you paid to list your items.

    1. JohnFen Silver badge

      "If ads were limited to just text and photos like in the early days of internet advertising then I would have no problem with browsing without an ad blocker"

      I don't block ads as such, but If ads stopped tracking or running code client-side, then I would have no problem with stopping my practice of preventing them from running Javascript.

  13. iron Silver badge

    I have no problem with advertising, my problem is with tracking every viewer of an advert as they move from site to site around the net. That is the real abusive advertising and Google are the biggest abuser. Call me when they decide to block every ad on their own platform, then I might consider unblocking them at my end.

  14. naive

    Stop the driver update ad banners in youtube

    Youtube is full again with little ads in clips to update windows drivers from obscure sources, which have no relation with Microsoft. Maybe they start fixing this asap ?.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Stop the driver update ad banners in youtube

      "Youtube is full again with little ads"

      Just install this and tick the block adverts option:

      https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/p/enhancer-for-youtube-for-microsoft-edge/9n4f8m7plt38?activetab=pivot:overviewtab

  15. FractalFragger2018

    this is not far enough!

    I think that all ads on all webpages should be blocked by default and if you want them you opt in for them. I dont want to see ads on any website i visit and any website that asks me to disable my ad blocker will ne be getting my hits in future!

  16. skalamanga

    Can they block cookie warnings and George overlays as well?

  17. A.P. Veening

    User control

    "In the interest of user control, the company says Chrome users can disable its ad ban through their browser settings."

    Are they really expecting anybody to be daft enough to disable an ad ban (unless that person is paid to view/analyse those ads)?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019