The new definition of pointless
An ad blocker from a company that basically exists to sell ads?
Makes the chocolate teapot seem redundant.
On Tuesday, as promised earlier this year, Google plans to begin enforcing ad quality requirements in its Chrome browser worldwide, based on the ad industry's conveniently self-defined standards. Online adverts that fall short of the advertising industry's Coalition for Better Ads' rules – which forbid particularly annoying ad …
And worse, they've rigged the system to limit the ability of users to install proper ad blockers. When Mozilla/Firefox was struggling to compete against IE, anyone remember what it was that really turned the tide? It was when it gained the ability to block pop ups, an ability IE lacked.
All you need is for regular people browsing on Chrome to get bombarded with "approved" (i.e. google sourced) ads and have a friend show them the ad free experience they can get using Firefox + uBlock or similar. Chrome is going to be bleeding market share, but I don't see the Chrome group in Google ever having the power to go up against the ad group that pays all the bills. At least not until Chrome is back to a minority browser share where it belongs.
It's a clever strategy. More and more people use ad blockers and their most common (and indisputable) excuse is about annoying ads, ads which take too much resources and/or distribute malware.
So the ad slingers will self-regulate, play nice and generally adopt a low profile until ad blockers have become useless and disappear again, after which it's back to full screen screaming ads you can't get rid of short of pulling the power plug...
After all their ideal world is one where "people" get fed ads 24/7 (preventing anything which could distract them from those ads), and ad blockers are the hurdle to clear to get there.
All that they (Google etc) care about is the amont and quality of the data that is being fed into their AI system that controls the world. Their world that is. Not mine.
1) Google is Evil
2) Adverts are Evil
2a) Adverts targetted at an individual are the worst of the worst form of Evil
3) Google is Evil
1984 was fiction and not a blueprint for the sort of society that Brin and co want to foist upon us. Sadly most of the world is just too dumb/stupid/drunk/stoned to realise what it happening.
If any ever sees me using a Google made device, or Google developed Applicartion or Operating System software they have my permission to give me a kick where it hurts. I will never knowingly do this.
Block anything moving and containing / using scripts. Then we can talk. Otherwise: NoScript, Adblock, not using chrome.
"Egregious resource use"? You mean like all those idiotic java scripts and several megabyte big pictures that are all the rage in modern websites?
Given the backlash from developers and the public opinion that is shifting clearly away from accepting ads, I don't see that this shift is an advantage for Google.
I have never met anyone who likes ads or finds them useful. Frankly, I wonder where all the clicks come from, because everyone I know is annoyed by ads and just ignores them, or goes into volcanic rage when a video autostarts and has no button to shut it down.
And that's why I run a browser that blocks everything by default.
I can tolerate adverts. I grew up with them on television and radio. But the big thing was that they didn't try to pwn me, steal from me, switcheroo from what I was looking at, etc etc.
When the adverts meet my standards, then we can talk...
>I can tolerate adverts.<
I can't. They're a terrible waste of my time at best, and attempted brainwashing at worst. And that's before they become vectors to screw up my computer.
If you really want to sell your product:
-Make a good product
-Price it reasonably
Word of mouth will do your advertising for you.
Some (many) are saying this blocker is pointless. But, that's what I used to do -- I blocked ad companies that did popups, and that did those ads that start making noise all on their own. (My new target would be the ones that start playing a video, due to high CPU and bandwidth usage.) That's it.. sites need their revenue, and the rest of the banner ads are easy enough to ignore (if it's useless) or (if the site does a good job of targetting ads) I can even be bothered to look at the ads and occasionally even click on one.
0.1% CPU and bandwidth? I wonder how they came up with that number -- not that I'm complaining, I think the ad should sit there and use 0 once it's loaded -- but, my notebook, my parents desktop, they are rather antiquated -- firefox and chrome run well enough on them, but with high CPU use while a page is loading. I would guess a 0.1% limit would block every single ad on most pages (even the ones that are just plain text probably would use over 0.1% over 60 seconds to load...)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019