I'm really surprised Google's lawyers let them proceed with ad-blocking given all the antitrust scrutiny. Not because it makes them more competitive with Firefox, but because it gives them a competitive advantage against other advertising agencies. (You know that if your ads are run through a Google service they're safe, but why risk using another service?)
The fatal flaw in Google's approach is that they're primarily focused on visible ad features instead of privacy concerns. I'd rather have an internet full of flashing highway billboards than the current privacy nightmare of today.
I'd be 1000x more inclined to turn off ad blocking if there was any transparency about the data being siphoned up.
More ad blocking isn't the answer. More transparency around data collection is.
> (You know that if your ads are run through a Google service they're safe, but why risk using another service?)
From what I understand, the Ad Blocker will work on a per-site basis, rather than a per-ad basis, i.e. if you have bad ads on your site, all ads are blocked in Chrome, including Google Ads.
The fatal flaw in Google's approach is that they're primarily focused on visible ad features instead of privacy concerns. I'd rather have an internet full of flashing highway billboards than the current privacy nightmare of today.
I'd be 1000x more inclined to turn off ad blocking if there was any transparency about the data being siphoned up.
More ad blocking isn't the answer. More transparency around data collection is.