Google Chrome to auto block annoying ads by 2018

[HEXUS]

Should mean there will be fewer pop-ups and auto-playing audio/video ads around.

Read more.

[Saracen]

Well, anything that blocks "annoying" ads has to be a good move. Trouble is :-

1) I don't use Google.
2) I certainly won't be using Chrome.
3) I find ALL ad's annoying.

So I guess it won't make much difference to me.

[peterb]

So that will be every ad will it - or more realistically, I'll be able to choose which ads I want to block after I've seen them say - 5 times?

But as I rarely use Chrome - it won't really affect me - but if Google were to stop listing sites that had annoying adverts, or weren't compliant, THAT would be worthwhile.

[Ozaron]

So that will be every ad will it - or more realistically, I'll be able to choose which ads I want to block after I've seen them say - 5 times?

Nah, this is Google. They'll have a "perfect" list of which adverts are annoying and which aren't, and you'll receive the ones they think are OK. And that'll be that.

Of course after this, if anyone is still successfully blocking YT or other Google sponsored ads, they will soon lose that functionality from Chrome..

if Google were to stop listing sites that had annoying adverts, or weren't compliant, THAT would be worthwhile.

Agreed, their de-listing department is already thriving with all of those copyright and government claims to take sites down, why not give them a side task of temporarily removing advert jungles? That said, who gave Google the right to remove websites because their advertising policies are a bit militaristic? Might be impossible to do.

[spacein_vader]

So that will be every ad will it - or more realistically, I'll be able to choose which ads I want to block after I've seen them say - 5 times?

But as I rarely use Chrome - it won't really affect me - but if Google were to stop listing sites that had annoying adverts, or weren't compliant, THAT would be worthwhile.

It'll only remove ads that Google has decided aren't compliant. With my cynical hat on I suspect that ads served by Googles competitors will be more likely to be seen as non-compliant than those served by them.

Ad-blockers are an endangered species on Chrome already, they took Ad-Nauseum (which hid all ads AND clicked on them all, invisible to the user to obfuscate their analytics,) down and won't even let you install it manually without using dev mode. I imagine the others will follow over time.

A single company being the most dominant ad slinger and the dominant browser is only going to go one way.

[Saracen]

.... but if Google were to stop listing sites that had annoying adverts, or weren't compliant, THAT would be worthwhile.

Presumably, Google's definition of "annoying" will be "not making us enough money".

My definition of "annoying ad" is "ad".

This shows the fundamental conflict, between a user's and Google's definition, even if I go a bit further than many.

[Iota]

Another way that Google aims to help web publishers, who might be missing ad views due to blocking inspired by intrusive ads, is via the Funding Choices program. This beta feature allows publishers to show a customised message to those who browse their sites with ad blocking turned-on. For example it can ask users to white-list their particular site or pay for an ad-free pass via Google Contributor.

Some sites already show a "customised message" to users using ad-blocking software, so now the option is to pay Google to browse sites ad-free? Wouldn't it just make more sense to change browsers to something other than Chrome and / or avoid any sites that use this feature?

I get that they're trying to clean up advertising methods, but I think they fail to understand that most of us who do block adverts do so knowing that some adverts can be quite malicious in nature - hence why we block them ALL.

[3dcandy]

If I get anything saying you have adblocker installed etc. etc. I just go elsewhere...

[Wozza63]

If I get anything saying you have adblocker installed etc. etc. I just go elsewhere...

You know there are adblockers to stop blocking adblockers. And often websites are so simplistic, that it is just a screen wide element that can be easily hidden with adblock. Right block, Block an ad on this page, and the rest is easy

[3dcandy]

You know there are adblockers to stop blocking adblockers. And often websites are so simplistic, that it is just a screen wide element that can be easily hidden with adblock. Right block, Block an ad on this page, and the rest is easy

Of course I do but it's just a case of I choose to go elsewhere. Same if a site is riddled with ads and the adblocker can't block all of them I just go elsewhere.... if they want the income that badly they will have to get it from someone else

[BadSkulliE]

"It's far too common that people encounter annoying, intrusive ads on the web - like the kind that blare music unexpectedly, or force you to wait 10 seconds before you can see the content on the page," wrote senior VP of Ads & Commerce at Google, Sridhar Ramaswamy.

Does that also mean that they will remove annoying ads from youtube?

[YazX]

naah, i will stick with Ad block extension.

[devBunny]

If I get anything saying you have adblocker installed etc. etc. I just go elsewhere...

I use uBlock origin which allows me to block *those* annoyances too along with all the cookie policy bars, slide-in annoyances, the plethora of sharing widgets, etc, etc.

The Internet on its own is challenging enough when you have ADHD, let alone having all the extra bits of crap assaulting the senses and demanding attention. I hate them all, especially image carousels, "news" marquees and scrolling tweet boxes. Anything that moves has to go or I have to leave the site, it's as simple as that. With ADHD defined as a disability, I sometimes wish that these things could be deemed discriminatory.

[Ozaron]

Anything that moves has to go or I have to leave the site, it's as simple as that. With ADHD defined as a disability, I sometimes wish that these things could be deemed discriminatory.

As someone without ADHD I'm sorry to say that I feel it would be sad to limit our web design possibilities like that, although I agree it's a shame that most moving, flashing or attention-grabbing stuff is misused on terrible advertising. Perhaps a version of websites, just like mobile is compared to desktop, but for ease of use would be a nice option? I don't know how many sites would set something like that up.

I use uBlock origin which allows me to block *those* annoyances too along with all the cookie policy bars, slide-in annoyances, the plethora of sharing widgets, etc, etc.

Also, I don't know about Chrome but Firefox is moving forwards to at least a temporary period where there are no add-ons. Even graphical customization will be unavailable, I believe, when Rust is fully implemented. If you rely on Ublock or other you may want to be careful not to update when that arrives (should still be months away AFAIK). I will be sticking with FF extended support release for as long as humanly possible to keep NoScript.

[devBunny]

Anything that moves has to go or I have to leave the site, it's as simple as that. With ADHD defined as a disability, I sometimes wish that these things could be deemed discriminatory.

As someone without ADHD I'm sorry to say that I feel it would be sad to limit our web design possibilities like that, although I agree it's a shame that most moving, flashing or attention-grabbing stuff is misused on terrible advertising. Perhaps a version of websites, just like mobile is compared to desktop, but for ease of use would be a nice option? I don't know how many sites would set something like that up.

If stillness were the default and there was the option to add as much whizz-bang vision and sound as a person wanted, that would be fine. I'd never enable it but others would be able to. It's the lack of choice and lack of control that makes it a problem. As for web design, I'm all ears for there's a decent justification for movement, something that makes the case for it being *essential*. It'd be a tough sell, though.

It's not just advertising. I have no use for tweet-scrollers, for instance. Site like Hexus have image carousels that scroll through a bunch of images for articles. I have no use for that either. I have to wonder who does as they're both too fast and too slow at the same time. Too fast if you want a good look at one image and too slow if you want to see all the choices before tedium sets in. It's a rubbish interface element as far as I'm concerned and I'll never put one on my web pages. In "never say never" spirit, if I ever do, it'll be up to the reader to kick start it (registered users could opt to have it on by default and set the speed).

I use uBlock origin which allows me to block *those* annoyances too along with all the cookie policy bars, slide-in annoyances, the plethora of sharing widgets, etc, etc.

Also, I don't know about Chrome but Firefox is moving forwards to at least a temporary period where there are no add-ons. Even graphical customization will be unavailable, I believe, when Rust is fully implemented. If you rely on Ublock or other you may want to be careful not to update when that arrives (should still be months away AFAIK). I will be sticking with FF extended support release for as long as humanly possible to keep NoScript.

I left Firefox years ago when it became "Firechromefox". I only use it out of curiosity every now and then. Pale Moon used to be a pure Firefox clone but is now forging its own path. Their policy is not fashion and change just for the sake of it; theirs is more "if it ain't broken". I'll be staying with that browser as long as possible. If Firefox do remove add-ons then I expect that Pale Moon will see many more users.

[Appliansys]

I think everyone will still continue their use of ad-block... For better or for worse, it's what 90% of people do. It's the exact same principle as recording something on a Tivo and skipping the ads on there!