Google Chrome Starts Testing a Built-in Ad Blocker on Windows, Android (mspoweruser.com) 236
An anonymous reader shares a report: Earlier this year, Google was rumored to be working on a built-in ad blocker for its Chrome browser. The new ad blocker inside Chrome won't block every ad you see on the web -- instead, it'll only block ads that are considered intrusive and go against the standards set by the Coalition for Better Ads. Google has started testing the new built-in ad blocker for Chrome today on the desktop and Android devices. The latest canary release for Google Chrome includes a new option under Chrome's Settings where you can enable the new ad blocker inside Chrome. Users can enable the new feature by going to the Content options inside Chrome's settings page (chrome://settings/content/ads). The built-in ad blocker should automatically block ads that are considered "intrusive." But Google Chrome also lets you strictly block ads on certain sites, and you can also choose to allow ads on certain sites if you'd like.
You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, Google will block adds not owned, operated by or sold by Google.
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking strictly for myself, its worthless if it does not stop one particular set of Ads which appear to be hosted by Google - at least I get the "Ad closed by Google" when I "X" the ad. Its the Battleships ad, ubiquitous and intensely annoying.
So what does it mean if Google has the only browser which is prepared to natively block Google ads? Are there not antitrust implications there?
Re: (Score:3)
They're totally gonna get sued for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if someone can convince a judge that they have a monopoly. They're definitely anything their position, but they're doing it as part of an oligopoly and it seems to be perfectly legal right now (in the US).
Re: (Score:2)
Abusing their position, that is. Android swipe keyboard is biased.
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to be cynical, but if they can stop the worst abuse then advertising might remain a viable way to pay for web content.
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but they poisoned that particular well by dumping too much toxic trash into it, so nobody wants to drink a drop from it anymore.
You want to advertise, fine. You want me to read them, no. No chance. The advertising industry abused us far too long to be granted ANY kind of tolerance anymore.
Advertisers, to play with something poisonous!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I posted pretty much the same thing a thread or two below. I'm a decade and a half into an all-out war with advertising. And outside of a few apps on my phone, I'm largely winning. If you want my money, interrupting what I'm doing, pissing me off, and begging for it is not the way to get it. Bogging down my computer and infecting me with malware is definitely not the way to do it. Provide a product I want and a convenient way for me to pay for it, and I'll fork over the cash. This is not rocket science.
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not turning off my ad blocker either. But like it or not, a lot of internet services are ad funded, including Slashdot.
At least with Google they are regulated by the EU and other governments. The situation isn't great, but maybe it can get better, and it's worth at least trying to come to some kind of truce.
Some way we can continue to enjoy Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
What would you suggest for a site like Slashdot?
I wish they would fix subscriptions, but I don't think they would be enough to run the site.
Re: (Score:3)
A micropayment system would be great, but the transaction cost is always too high. Even with virtual currencies like Bitcoin the transaction fees make very small payments impractical.
Maybe we could pay with work done. Have some kind of client in the browser that mines cryptocurrency for a pool which is distributed to participating sites. Mining only happens when you are browsing participating sites. That has issues though, like what constitutes "browsing" and what crypto coin is easy enough to mine that ph
Re: (Score:3)
if they can stop the worst abuse then advertising might remain a viable way to pay for web content.
The issue I have is that advertising (especially Google advertising) has become so mixed with tracking and egregious privacy invasion that I don't see how the two can be split apart again. I have no guarantee the ad slinger won't also drop a cookie, log my IP or use any of so many other mechanisms to follow me around the internet and spy on all my actions.
If companies (again, especially Google) wouldn't track, I would probably be fine with simple non overly annoying ads or with "sponsored links". Since they
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had to resort to a strict ad blocker (uBlock Origin), but I'd really like to support the sites I like by allowing their ads through. But it seems every time I try that, I get bombarded with obnoxious or intrusive ads which force me to block them again. I think Google may be on to something. Blocking ads on a site-by-site basis doesn't give advertisers any incentive to clean up their ads since they don't really control the sites where the ads show up. But blocking ads on the basis of how intrusive they are creates a clear incentive for advertisers to move away from obnoxious ads.
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed 100% with this. I'd be really open to have ads that follow a standard. I use uBlock Origin in conjunction with uMatrix and so I really don't have an issue if nothing is ever developed, but having a view of "behind-the-scenes" and knowing that ads are how some sites are paid for, I'd be willing to relent -- given there is a standard that is followed.
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree completely. Ads need to be obtrusive to be effective. If they don't steal your attention away from what you were doing, than they are not doing their job. Ads which blend into the background are not ads that anyone wants to pay for. It was demonstrated a long time ago that subliminal advertising doesn't work.
There are no ads which are unobtrusive, and there never will be.
I'd really like to support the sites I like by allowing their ads through.
Not me! If I'm on a site I'm there to enjoy the site, not have that enjoyment interrupted by parasites trying to separate me from my money. If I like a site enough that I value it, I'll give them money if they set up a convenient way for me to do it. What I won't do is allow them to use virtual carnies to distract me from why I'm there in an attempt to get my money. That's a really asshole way to run a business.
Between the malware, auto-play shit, overlays, content jumping around the page, and simple breaks in the content I'm actively trying to consume, I see no reason to see any ad ever. They are almost all abusive in one way or another, and websites need to figure out another way to keep the lights on. The core of the web is that my device gets sent content, and it figures out how to display it. I choose not to display the ads, and until everything is app-ized, that's the way it's going to stay for me.
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
– Banksy
What other sites are included with my payment? (Score:2)
If I like a site enough that I value it, I'll give them money if they set up a convenient way for me to do it.
And back in the late 1990s, there was such "a convenient way": federated subscription networks. Back then, they were called "adult verification systems", on the theory that grown-ups can pay for nice things. Someone could subscribe to (say) Adult Check and get access to thousands of participating publishers' sites for $10 per month, with much of that going to the publishers. But now, without any sort of cross-site subscription, a user would end up having to pay $4 or more per month times the number of domai
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ads need to be obtrusive to be effective. If they don't steal your attention away from what you were doing, than they are not doing their job.
There are non-obtrusive ads that manage to steal my attention, namely those where the companies are politely and informatively telling about their new products which already interest me and about which I want to read on a special interest site focusing those products and their objective comparisons and trends related to them. Too bad many marketing communications professionals don't know how to do that yet with their products.
Re: (Score:2)
Crap.
Inline ads in news feeds (such as Slashdot), coloured differently and clearly marked as Sponsored Content, are not in the least obtrusive.
I even occasionally look at them too.
Re: (Score:3)
The best ads are independent reviews of products. I read tech news sites which tell me about new products and review them. If multiple reviewers that I think are reasonably objective bring it to my attention and say it's good, I'll consider it.
The problem for marketing departments is that their products are often total crap. Junk that only sells if they can trick you into buying it somehow. Thus they need advertising to either con you or make you want the new shiny. And I'm gonna block that rubbish.
Unobtrusive? Re:You mean... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting the one quality [giantitp.com] without which an ad can't be unobtrusive.
Re: (Score:2)
But blocking ads on the basis of how intrusive they are creates a clear incentive for advertisers to move away from obnoxious ads.
Unfortunately, what the CBA (and Google) considers "acceptable" includes ads that spy on you, so it's a nonstarter for me personally.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen a Google ad in recent history.
I've seen lots of popups and pop unders though, all by ad networks owned by Google's parent, Alphabet. (DoubleClick, anyone?)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but with one large, trumplet-blaring exception:
Google lets uploaders insert video ads into YouTube videos, making playlists next to impossible with an ad-blocker.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, Google will block adds not owned, operated by or sold by Google.
I don't think they will add them. Being a blocker, I'm sure the content will be subtracted instead.
Re: You mean... (Score:4, Informative)
I checked their Canary build... Google's "intrusive" ads are defined not per ad, but by a list of ad servers pretty much all belonging to an Eastern European ad syndicate
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I will never switch to Chrome. Firefox became almost completely unworkable (both on mobile and desktop), but this is the only browser that allows me to fend of all ads.
Once Firefox becomes a complete crap, I will switch to lynx.
Re: (Score:3)
Well just as long as Google stays responsible on their adds then I am good with it.
The problem I always had with adds on the internet ever sense 1994 were adds that just got overly aggressive. The adds help pay for the content people want to see, however they shouldn't prevent people from being able to access the content, or just disrespectful to the cost of bandwidth, and time on the peoples devices.
We use to had popup windows, message box loops, full screen thick box adds, adds that use a ton of resourc
Re: (Score:2)
What are adds? :P
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you admitted it. You want to see weiners. Here's one. http://i.bnet.com/blogs/weiner... [bnet.com]
Thanks but no thanks (Score:3)
I'll stick to ublock. Which means using Firefox because Chrome for Android doesn't support it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use the browser for more than a few minutes so I don't think I would see any battery life difference.
But does it sync passwords and bookmarks using your chrome account?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Passwords syncing and ad blocking are much more important to me than performance or battery life. To me, the only downside of Firefox right now is that it has become increasingly buggy especially with large numbers of tabs.
It's still the only major cross platform browser with syncing on all devices and good ad blocking support, so I'll continue to use it. The fact that it is open source and not owned by an evil corporation trying to spy on me (Google, Microsoft or Apple, mainly) is a bonus.
I'll watch Brave
Re: (Score:2)
it's on chrome, but not android
Chrome for Android doesn't do extensions (Score:2)
Last I checked, Chrome Web Store extensions ran in Google Chrome for Windows desktop, Google Chrome for macOS, and Google Chrome for GNU/Linux, not Google Chrome for Android/Linux.
Opera Browser (Score:4, Interesting)
Opera Browser - practically the same thing as Chrome, but has a full featured built in ad-blocker already AND VPN client. Google is just now playing catch-up.
Re: (Score:2)
Google hasn't even caught up to Opera 12 yet. But then again neither has Opera.
Vivaldi FTW :) Hasn't caught up to Opera 12 either but...closer than everything else.
An interesting development (Score:5, Interesting)
This will be a big test for all those people who claim to block ads because they have gotten so bad. Yes, this will let google's ads through, as well as other well behaving ads. This is what many people claim they have wanted for a long time. Now that they have it, will they actually allow these ads through? I will happily jump on this train simply because there are too many problems with the other adblockers. There are too many time things won't load or play because the ads are blocked that I welcome a way to block only the unruly ads and let the others through. Plus, I have always felt bad about blocking ads on sites I like since I know it is a revenue source for them. But if this really works like they claim it does, it will be an easy way to stop the bad ads and leave the rest, which is really what I think people should be striving for. But I have a feeling people will block all the ads and say screw the sites.
Re:An interesting development (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing as "well behaving ads". At the very least, they cost my bandwidth. If I am interested in your products, I will go and search for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Your bandwidth is enormous and ads which aren't enormous don't cost it significantly. Some of these things are 30kB images or even text ads.
Satellite and cellular are harshly capped (Score:2)
Your bandwidth is enormous
Not at $5 to $10 per GB for a satellite or cellular last mile. So technically, peak throughput may be "enormous", but not sustained throughput.
Re: (Score:2)
Ads should be a few kilobytes. The average Web user visits 1,200 pages per month; the top trend was 2,600 per month in 2010, and can be around 5,000 per month today.
If the ad is a 32kB image, that's 160MB per month, which is pretty significant at per-GB costs like that, but not for your standard broadband at all (you know, the stuff that keeps getting 200GB caps). If the ad is text, it's like 40-50 bytes, probably wrapped in 400 bytes of JS calls because why not, so 2MB per month.
Facebook is full of ad
Re: (Score:2)
Ads should be a few kilobytes.
They're not.
If the ad is a 32kB image
Nowadays, ads even on text articles are often video, which is much larger than that. I'm glad that you agree that they need to die, but they haven't yet.
160MB per month, which is pretty significant at per-GB costs like that, but not for your standard broadband at all (you know, the stuff that keeps getting 200GB caps).
I'll answer that once "your standard broadband" becomes more widely available out in the country. Rural areas are more likely to be unserved by fiber, cable, and DSL ISPs than people who live in more densely populated areas. If everybody living in the country were to move to the city for "your standard broadband", nobody would be left to grow th
Re:An interesting development (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no such thing as "free content." At the very least, content costs their bandwidth. If they were interested in serving you content without ads, they would offer a subscription (that you wouldn't pay for).
It's a two-way street.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be the kind of person never muting/fast forwarding ads on TVs or doing something else. Otherwise, you wouldn't get that free content, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Strawman argument.
You still see the ads when you mute or fast forward. The ads are still displayed as you wander off to do something else, and you also risk missing the return of the program.
Likewise, as the technology catches up and advertising adapts you'll get advertising one way or another, or be restricted to paid content. In-line ads and anti-adblockers are just the start.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing as "free content." At the very least, content costs their bandwidth. If they were interested in serving you content without ads, they would offer a subscription (that you wouldn't pay for).
First, it's not my obligation to support their flawed business model. If their content was interesting enough, I'd pay for a subscription. And I have no sympathy for complaints about the cost of bandwidth either, when it's 99% the web developer's fault. A simple page on a news site may have one or two kilobytes of useful text; however, it downloads megabytes of unnecessary frameworks, scripts, CSS, images, videos, and kitchen sinks. Lazy or incompetent coders cost the content provider, but I don't see why
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't go there at all. It's interesting enough for you to use an adblocker, but not to buy a subscription? Sorry. That's what brought you the current incarnation of Forbes.com
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of sane people would rather put up with some well-behaved ads
So long as ads remain well-behaved, the banner blindness effect [wikipedia.org] will continue to ensure that their revenue is not sufficient to fund writing and editing articles and serving them to readers.
What workaround for banner blindness would you recommend?
Re: (Score:3)
Google just needs to limbo under the lazyness bar such that users aren't annoyed enough to block all ads.
Re:An interesting development (Score:5, Insightful)
I block ads because they're malware vectors and not worth the risk. How obtrusive they aren't doesn't really matter anymore. Until they actually look over the code of all ads before they offer them up, I'm not going to allow them.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that they have it
That is very premature. From past experiences with similar systems the content got through, the "good" ads got through... and a whole lot of the "bad" ads too. So I installed an hyper-aggressive ad blocker to get rid of the bad ads and the good ads disappeared too. If and only if Google blocks bad ads with a vengeance and shit list sites for trying so there's some real incentive to not try might this be successful. Meanwhile you have a lot of once bitten, twice shy people who'll continue to use the other ad
Re: (Score:3)
>This will be a big test for all those people who claim to block ads because they have gotten so bad
These stupid, stupid, stupid people. ALL ads are bad, without any exception. It's junk, it's propaganda. Kill advertisement industry with fire. I do not care if this will be a radical economical revolution.
A person has a right not to be harassed. Period. That includes ads.
Re:An interesting development (Score:5, Insightful)
This will be a big test for all those people who claim to block ads because they have gotten so bad
No, it won't, because it does nothing about the worst abuse that ads engage in: tracking.
What a nightmare (Score:2)
I don't use an ad blocker, but even if I did I wouldn't want one enabled by default - especially not one created by a marketing company.
I do a fair bit of front end web development, and I don't like the possibility that this could cause rendering errors when it falsely detected an ad.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd prefer that your customers hit the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer that they're not unknowingly using an ad blocker that can break rendering of any site without warning due to a false positive. If you intentionally install one at least there's a chance you know it did something. These problems can come up at any point down the road, but worse would be during active development.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm talking about broken rendering - not missing ads. Most people don't choose broken rendering for no reason.
Re: (Score:2)
In adblocking, false negatives are far far far worse than false positives.
Absolutely wrong. A false positive means that important content doesn't appear at all - and if you're doing a bank transfer, that could be potentially disastrous. This is much worse for your average user than an occasional ad slipping through. The same is mostly true for antivirus - how many times in the past few years have parts of the OS been flagged as a false positive and broken Windows installs? That is not better than a false negative either.
Re: (Score:2)
A false positive means that important content doesn't appear at all - and if you're doing a bank transfer, that could be potentially disastrous.
I disagree, based on the fact that I don't use an adblocker, I use NoScript to block anything Java/Javascript/Flash/etc., ad or not.
Sometimes, this causes sites to break, but not that often. And it's never caused a failure on a bank site that led to anything remotely like a disaster. It's been, at worst, an inconvenience that is fixed in a couple of mouseclicks.
Feels kinda dodgy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Under US law, they're fine as long as they hold to the same standards for everyone, including themselves.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be happier with no auto-play video (Score:5, Interesting)
The worst thing about using Chrome is the inability to disable HTML5 video autoplay. It's either ads that start running automatically, or videos that they stick to the top of every !@#$ news story on CNN. I've been using Chrome from its early days, but I'm honestly starting grow weary from videos that just play all the time. Yes, there are add-ons that supposedly block them. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. But if software won't let the user be in control of what's displayed on his computer, it's really time for that software to go.
Re: (Score:2)
I would prefer the ability to pick and choose embedded objects from specific sites. i.e don't embed youtube links.
Re: (Score:2)
Auto-play is annoying, but it may not be possible to entirely prevent without also turning off all javascript that runs when the page is loaded as well, since the play functionality could be activated under program control, and if you simply disallowed that as well, then even when a user *tries* to play a video and clicks an on-screen button to start it, the js code that would otherwise start the video playing would not be able to do so.
I'd personally settle for simply not allowing any videos to play at
Activate a video with a user gesture (Score:2)
the play functionality could be activated under program control, and if you simply disallowed that as well, then even when a user *tries* to play a video and clicks an on-screen button to start it, the js code that would otherwise start the video playing would not be able to do so.
Then gate a site's play function behind the same "user gesture" that pop-up blocking uses. I concede that I've seen misuses of "user gesture" where any click on a page will pop up the ads. So don't allow video to start unless the video's center is within the screen and within half a screen size of the center of the control on which the gesture was activated.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you would be forcing absolutely anything that wanted to play videos into using that gesture... disallowing any kind of custom controls. That's too restrictive. What if the video was simply a cut-scene in a game that the person was playing on the website? Should the user be forced to use this "standard" gesture every time the game is playing some video?
I can appreciate the intent in your suggestion, but in the end, I believe it is simply too restrictive, and pushes programmers into a corner by t
Re: (Score:2)
Then you would be forcing absolutely anything that wanted to play videos into using that gesture... disallowing any kind of custom controls.
After the user has activated the video using the standard gesture, the custom controls would begin to work for the specific video that the user had activated.
What if the video was simply a cut-scene in a game that the person was playing on the website? Should the user be forced to use this "standard" gesture every time the game is playing some video?
First, why is the cut scene a video, as opposed to being made in the game engine? Second, why is a game with FMV cut scenes a web application, as opposed to being a native, downloadable, installable, offline application for Windows, GNU/Linux, Android, macOS, iOS, and whatever other platforms to which the game's fans can crowdfund ports? Third, yes, as
Re: (Score:2)
So you propose to lock every developer into this allegedly "standard" UI gesture, preventing any and all possible attempts that programers might make to innovate. I came up with what might have been a plausible example, and you challenge the entire notion by suggesting that basically no reasonable person would ever have a reasonb want to do that... without justification, I might add. If your imagination is really so poor as to be incapable of thinking outside of some preconceived box, or to imagine that
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, why bother having a Turing complete language at all if you are just going to end up restricting what the developer is allowed to do?
First, Turing completeness makes no claim about I/O capability. Second, unlike a computer in the physical world, a Turing machine has unbounded memory and execution time, which are resources that a user may want to conserve.
Re:I'd be happier with no auto-play video (Score:4, Informative)
Safari in the next version of macOS will block all autoplay videos unless you whitelist the site. I tested the beta and it seems to work well; CNN being the biggest offender.
https://www.cnet.com/news/wwdc... [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How does safari define "autoplay"? If the web page contains js code that tries to play a video, does it block it? If so, what if this js code was being invoked in an event-handler, in response to clicking on a custom js video player widget's "play" button? How can safari tell the difference between a video playing that the user wanted to watch vs one that they didn't intend on?
Or does the user have to then whitelist every website that uses custom js video players?
Re: (Score:2)
Auto-play is annoying, but it may not be possible to entirely prevent without also turning off all javascript that runs when the page is loaded as well
Firefox manages it, so it's obviously possible.
Re: (Score:2)
I have stopped going to CNN because of how shitty their site is. It's been a shitshow for a long time, but the auto-pay videos and related scrolling issues were the absolute last straw.
Disable HTML5 Autoplay extension [google.com].
It's a little quirky and sometimes requires you to hit play twice or advance the time 1 second to make a video start, but I much prefer that to autoplay. (The advance 1s quirk may also be related to my adblocking - quite possible it's waiting for an ad to load which n
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox lets you do this.
Go to about:config, then search for "autoplay" to find the relevant settings.
This was enough to get me to switch to Firefox, after years of using Chrome!
Fails to deliver (Score:2)
The new ad blocker inside Chrome won't block every ad you see on the web
Stopped reading there. Not good enough.
NEXT!
Re: (Score:2)
Well I don't know, we'll see if it's good enough. I use adblockers as well because as we all know so much of the ads currently online are utter shit and annoying, but honestly static text ads and short video ads before video content I don't have a problem with.
I generally keep adblock disabled while watching youtube channels/content from streams that I like because it's a way of giving at leas
Expect paywalls (Score:2)
Of course a web without ads could be made to work. First, sites will start rearr...
To read the rest of this comment, log in or subscribe to "Comments by Damian Yerrick".
The market at work (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, by making this feature optional and culling the most obnoxious and egregious ads Google alleviates some of the friction from their users. Most slashdotters are probably already using an ad blocker and blocking all ads by default. I started using an ad blocker because of auto-playing video ads and other obnoxious time wasters that I kept running into.
Ad blocker usage seems to be increasing [businessinsider.com]. Building this feature into Chrome allows them to help control ad blocking-- block the most obnoxious stuff and make it all totally optional in order to help dissuade users from blocking all ads. Better some ads, thinks Google, than none.
But let's say Google does block all ads. They still make their money because Chrome could just track everything the user does anyway and they could just sell that data instead of old fashioned "look look click click".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Opera is a good point of comparison. Opera blocks ads, but they don't make money through advertising on web pages. Google does. Google having the dominant browser and using it to block its competitors out of the market is basically 90's Microsoft, and likely an easy target for a lawsuit from a competing ad network.
Some other people in the thread said that it would probably evade the ire of antitrust litigators if it's a third party set of standards. I don't think that would be enough simply be
Make ads STATIC! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which Slashdot ads will this block? (Score:2)
If I had more time, I'd boot my old Win7 machine with Canary to find out (and I probably will tonight).
Anybody comment on whether or not Slashdot ads meet the standards of the Coalition for Better Ads?
Probably not the right solution (Score:2)
An add blocker designed by an advertising company... Does anyone else see the problem here?
Though on the one hand I don't actually want to block every ad, especially on sites I actually get use out of, but OTOH, ads have become an assault these days, with pop overs, pop unders, autoplayed videos with cranked up sound, viruses, malware, etc. Just the other day on a site that I use regularly, a so called acceptable ad (based on ABP settings, yes I know I know) tried to serve me a zeus trjoan... The only way
Re: Probably not the right solution (Score:2)
>An add blocker designed by an advertising company... Does anyone else see the problem here?
Yeah, it is "bees against honey," "flies against shite," and Google against ads
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome/Google: Would you like to block ads? click the following categories that you don't want to see:
Microsoft Windows [x] (this means user is likely interested in Linux)
Honda Automobiles [x] (user more likely in automakers X, Y and Z)
McDonalds [x] (user more likely interested in fast food maker X, Y and Z)
All of a sudden, Google knows a lot more about your preference in operating systems, car buying and takeout than they knew based on what you type into a search box.
not all (Score:2)
K'bye.
Oxymoron (Score:4)
The new ad blocker inside Chrome won't block every ad you see on the web -- instead, it'll only block ads that are considered intrusive
Um, that IS every ad.
No Google ads blocked of course (Score:2)
Since they must meet "acceptable" standards... Right?
Pointless (Score:2)
The standards set by the CBA are so low that I consider them pointless. They don't even reject the worst sort of "bad" ad: the ad that tracks you or collects information about you.
/. liking this? (Score:2)
Please don't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, your amazing 60 data points.
Six months of website data, four months of Amazon data, and my 10,000+ comment history (3,000+ comments this year alone).
Re: (Score:2)
None of which has anything to do with the fact that you have very few data points.
I have enough data to make an marketing intern blush.
Why don't you also throw in your weight and granola bar brand name into your "firehose of bullshit" Trumpian response?
My current weight is 358 pounds. I was 370 pounds 12 weeks ago or so. I'm losing one pound per week.
https://www.kickingthebitbucket.com/2017/07/18/losing-ten-pounds-with-a-digital-bathroom-scale/ [kickingthebitbucket.com]
As part of my diet, I eat two bars per weekday (ten per week): Clif Bars [amzn.to], Fiber One Bars [amzn.to] and Power Bars [amzn.to].
Re: (Score:2)
You're so easy to trigger into your bullshit mode.
That's funny. All my asshole critics are posting more comments than I'm posting each day. Almost three to one. Annoying — for everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd probably also load visible images from [adserver]
Not me. Accessing those images will still give the ad company more data about me than I'm willing to trust them with.