Deutsch
English
Recently, the ad industry was rattled at its core as Google announced they would be adding an ad blocker to Chrome in 2018 that will rigorously block invasive (obtrusive) ads. Why would a company like Google that makes millions off ads take such a step? All over the world, ad creators are frantically calling their lawyers while comment sections are overflowing with doom and gloom. Is Google taking the side of annoyed Internet users or are they simply using their market power to kill off rivals? Maybe both.
At first glance, Google's decision to develop an ad blocker may seem like Godzilla attempting to become housing minister. For years, the company has woven an ever tighter network of ads that affects not only the search engine but also numerous partner sites. If only there were no users that persistently fight the joy of ads with ad blockers and similar software. It may have been disruptive ads that forced users to wait, autoplay videos or popups that broke the camels back. If you've ever been screamed at by an ad on your cellphone in the dead of night you know what I'm talking about. Knowing that, in many cases, the traffic caused by ads on mobile news sites far outweighs the actual content doesn't help matters and justifiably outrages users even more.
Not only have ads become a nuisance but they can also pose a real threat. Many sites are now selling ad spaces through intermediaries that may occasionally turn a blind eye when dealing with shady customers. Consequently, even reputable sites have unknowingly contributed to the distribution of malware in the past in the form of inconspicuous ads that surreptitiously redirected users to infected websites. Others suddenly found themselves with suspicious cookies or personalized ads that had the potential to cause marital disputes. If you were using an ad blocker, you were safe from all this so this is not only about freedom of advertising but also security.
Ads as security risks - malware included
As the number of frustrated users with ad blockers increased, the advertising industry, including Google, took a considerable hit to their revenue. That's why they came up with the Coalition for Better Ads initiative with the goal of rendering ad blockers unnecessary. They're hoping to achieve this by embedding ads in a more harmonious way into websites instead of forcing them down our throats. Have they had any success so far? Nobody knows as there are no official statements. Even though most users are aware that many web offerings are financed through ads, 25 to 40 percent (depending on the country) already use ad blocking tools. Reason enough for Google to take this matter more seriously and to leverage the full potential of their market power. In the future, websites that fail to play by the rules will trigger the new blocking mechanism and their Google Search ranking will go down. This would be a nightmare for the affected sites.
Many Internet-dependent companies (often publishers with powerful news outlets) already feel cornered and have recently begun filing lawsuit after lawsuit against the creators of existing ad blockers even calling for country-wide bans. They consider using their offers without viewing their ads outright theft and now Google has the audacity to integrate ad blocking technology directly into Chrome - it's an existential threat and negates their business model. On top of that, there are those who believe Google will generously exclude their own ads from the new blocking mechanism. This would increase the already substantial market power of the search giant even further and companies that don't cooperate, i.e. pay Google, or violate Google's guidelines could be seriously harmed.
Skeptics are already foretelling the end of ad blocking technology as we know it once the courts become involved. They argue that dampening Google's efforts in court could be followed by a total ban if only because of the non-discrimination principle. Both legislature and judiciary often struggle with Internet-related issues and may set momentous precedents all too easily. Will we some day be forced to watch ads?
The solution can only be applying common sense which seems to be quite rare on the Internet these days. Google's approach of making ads more agreeable and alleviating the pain of Internet users is certainly welcome but it's quite possible they will try to line their own pockets in the process. Still, I know many users that don't grudge companies their ad revenue as long as this doesn't entail long waiting periods, nagging animations and autoplay videos. It's like watching a busker. You gladly pay a little money for the performance but only if the performer doesn't keep following you wherever you go and doesn't get louder every second. If content creators manage to harmoniously blend ads with content we might yet have pleasant web browsing experiences one day.
What I would like to know: do you use ad blockers and do you find online ads annoying or do you simply sight tight and close whatever comes?
I do use an ad blocker. If a site requests the ad blocker is disabled I take a view on whether the content is worth doing so. Where a site ads include ads that significantly slow response time or have recurrent pop-ups, or side ads with audio that constantly spring to life, I avoid it regardless of content. The general trend towards an ad overload with which even the best technology struggles means that if the courts were to ban ad blockers then I think commercial interests will inevitably stifle the web.
Yes, I use an ad blocker, why, because I hate unwanted ads forced on me.
If I want a product, I will search either web sites direct or rely on search engine to help me.
I dont have or need people knocking on my door to sell me products or religion, if I need something I will look for it myself. That is my choice.
Ads are not my main problem. What really bugs me is having to delete or block the enormous flood of spam I get in my email, much of it from overseas.
I use add blockers all the time to stop those auto adds that eat up my network i don´t mind adds that play nice and never do any business with any company that uses nasty unwanted adds, i understand that some sites need adds but when the adds have more content then the site i never go to that site again. if google can get adds under control i am for it, if i am forced to view adds i will never buy from them
I don't use an ad blocker unfortunately. I find all ads an invasion of privacy. I do everything I can to block ads manually from the marketers like Taboola and Google but a new lot of advertisers pop up almost immediately.
Just give it a try, you can always uninstall later. :) Type the name of your favorite browser followed by "adblock" into your preferred search engine and you will certainly find what you're looking for.
I am constantly amazed at the number and variety of ads on the net.
After trying several blockers, I finally settled on one that blocks everything. So far, it has blocked 36,000+ and I don't surf all that much.
Since I installed it, I have had everything from a polite request to turn it off for faster access to blocked service.
The latest iteration actually tells me how ad heavy a page is before I open it and provides anti ad-block killers.
As for lost revenue, several sites now request a monthly subscription and have put up a pay-wall block unless you pay up front.
Several friends have quit Google because of their habit of targeting ads to what you look at (they are great trackers).
Perhaps Google has relized that it is losing people and if the bleed is serious enough, will their advertisers stay with them.
Sounds like good marketing strategy to me to get ahead of the "ad problem" in an effort to maintain its potition.
Lots of people "google it" but how many have quit because they get bombarded
I'm grumpy because the advertises use internet capacity that I pay for to impose their adverts for things I don't want and am not interested in. If they only advertised to me when I expressed interest in some kind of purchase, then that would be acceptable. Otherwise its just basically spam. I think ad blockers are a good partial answer to this imposition.
As ads became more intrusive, I became more resistant. I now use an effective ad blocker.
I certainly use Ad Blockers on Firefox, and have no trouble with ads. To suggest the possibility that we could be legally forced to accept ads to me would be essentially a forced intrusion on privacy and our liberty of choice (an aspect of personal liberty - a concept being progressively eroded to the point that many people, specially the young, no longer are aware of this fundamental human right).
I think it's bad enough when I purchase a DVD, and then find ads/promos on it. I PAID for the content, I shouldn't be paying to get ads also.
The realm of the Intenet is different, as that is free. But if people choose to place material on an open medium, I would argue this does not give them the right to force ads on the viewer. If they wish revenue, then they should make access to their content a purchasable item (as do Google/YouTube with certain movies). If the material isn't good enough for people to be willing to pay a token sum to view, then they need to improve that content.
It would be conceivable that a general account could be set up where the user deposits say $50, and for each paid viewing, it is charged to that account, the viewer topping up the account as needed. Inherently not difficult!
I have used ad blockers for quite some years, but not on all sites that I visit. Not all advertising is bad or evil, so I allow sites that I trust to serve advertisements to me.
So far as Google including ad blocking in Chrome is concerned, I am rather skeptical about this, as most of the income that Google receives is from advertising. I suspect that Google will attempt to monetize the advertising streams that it already has by charging web sites for control of their advertising.
To many ads or annoying ads cause me to just close the page.
As you stated, I do not want them following me around like a puppy dog and howling like a wolf.
If they require that I view them to see their site (take ad blocker off) I just don't view their site. That simple.
Ban ad blockers? I would use the internet even less.
Banning ad blockers is saying that we are committing a crime if we use them? I DON'T THINK SO!!
I would go %100 with Gmail and drop my Hotmail if they were to ban ad blockers.
In fact I dare say that virtually all of my surfing would come to a screeching halt.
I will say that I have seen simple, cute ads that are not annoying. They are there, not moving, not screaming and not using up bandwidth and load times and vid card memory (let's not forget that) with videos.
I have seen sites take extremely long, by today's standards, to load because of them.
I don't have an ad blocker other than the delete button and emails that are ads get cut immediately. If I didn't ask for it I don''t want it.
YES I USE AD BLOCKERS AND FIND ADS ANNOYING. WHERE POSSIBLE I CLOSE ADS WHEN I CAN..