Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Firefox Google Apple

Google Chrome Now Has Resource-Blocking Adblock 335

Posted by timothy
from the advertising-wants-to-be-shunned dept.
MackieChan writes "It seems to have slipped under the radar, but Google Chrome now has resource-blocking abilities, and may have had the ability for some time. Using the 'beforeload' event on the document, an extension can now intercept resources from loading. Adblock for Chrome has already added it, and I expect the other 'ad-blocking' extensions have as well. Before you start praising Google, however, it's the WebKit team that deserves your credit; one Chromium developer responded to praise by stating '... thank Apple — they added it to WebKit, we just inherited it.' Firefox vs. Chrome just got a bit more exciting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Chrome Now Has Resource-Blocking Adblock

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Uh, not really (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ewhac (5844) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @01:49AM (#32960628) Homepage Journal

    Every reason people used to give in favor of Firefox now applies to Chrome, times ten.

    Incorrect. Chrome can't run NoScript [noscript.net].

    And before you say, "Chrome lets you control JavaScript execution, blah blah blah," yes it does at a very coarse level. NoScript is much more fine-grained, and provides substitute scripts for sites that "need" to run crap from google-analytics et al.

    It looks like this functionality may bring NoScript that much closer to Chrome.

    Schwab

  • by calmofthestorm (1344385) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @01:50AM (#32960636)

    I suspect it's because Google knows that virtually no one uses AdBlock, and that those who do aren't the sort that tend to click on ads anyway. Same reason they let you opt out of their DoubleClick tracking cookie -- you won't bother.

  • Re:Uh, not really (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Manos_Of_Fate (1092793) <link226@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @02:38AM (#32960798)
    Really it isn't the complexity, but the small differences in what happens when I open new tabs, type things into the address bar, etc. Even in places where I like Chrome's UI better, I just can't get motivated to adjust to a new browser. I admit it's mostly just laziness on my part, like most people I am a creature of habit, and am loathe to change them without a pretty compelling reason.
  • by lhaeh (463179) * on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @02:47AM (#32960832)

    Looking here [google.com] we can see that, for 2009, Google made 23,651 million in revenue. Considering that 22,889 of those millions were from advertising, you have to wonder how long google will tolerate ad blocking in their products. Sure, it is fine now as not many people use chrome, and even fewer of those people install an ad blocking plug-in, but what about if it becomes more popular? Will they still tolerate it then? One wonders what would happen to google if Microsoft decided to make ad blocking default in Internet Explorer.

  • Re:Uh, not really (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stonedcat (80201) <hikaricore [at] gmail.com> on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @02:49AM (#32960838) Homepage

    You seem to be assuming that the user wants to run each and every script on the pages they encounter... this is not the case.
    One of the main reasons to use Noscript is to avoid scripts that are not designed with your best interest in mind.

  • Re:Uh, not really (Score:3, Insightful)

    by macshit (157376) <.miles. .at. .gnu.org.> on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:31AM (#32961026) Homepage

    Yeah, and there are certainly places where FF is better than chrome -- e.g., both have similar "awesome bar" things, but FF's is hugely faster and better at coming up with appropriate matches than chrome's. This is not a small issue for me -- I've come to rely on the AB instead of using bookmarks (chrome's "blank page menu" thing is more user-friendly, but vastly more limiting).

    I use both browsers -- FF at home, where my machine has lots of memory, and chrome at work, where memory restrictions make the ability to reclaim memory by closing tabs hugely convenient (though, despite that convenience, chrome seem to actually use a fair bit more memory than FF for equivalent tasks) -- so I think I have a generally balanced view of the two.

    I'd say that although chrome is a slick browser with some really nice features (process-per-tab being the obvious one), it's kind of over-hyped in general, and it's hardly unambiguously better than FF (as many comments in this thread seem to be suggesting). Both are great browsers, and both will get better in the future; google's made it clear that they've no problem with FF stealing chrome's best features, and indeed hopes they do.

  • by MoeDumb (1108389) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @03:34AM (#32961042)
    I'll ask Kelsey and get back to you. But seriously... -- Grammar nazi: in pre-Web days they were called editors.
  • by Red_Chaos1 (95148) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @04:39AM (#32961316)

    I wholeheartedly agree with this, strictly in the "load after" sense. I cannot stand it when the content I am interested won't load because some overworked ad server is stalled.

    That said, I'm also an "asshole" who blocks ads. Why? Because I don't care for the way they're shoved in my face constantly. I'm sorry, but I don't care how much you polish it, a turd is a turd, and I want nothing to do with it. Same goes for most ads. I really don't care about the product or service, and shoving it in my face with interstitial ads or flash pop-overs or whatever only makes me hate your brand even more.

    I'm tired of being demonized when it's the advert companies who don't have a clue. Get it together, stop bludgeoning me with your dreck, and I might stop blocking it.

  • by joost (87285) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @05:22AM (#32961510) Homepage

    I've asked myself this question too. The funny thing is, I would be very OK with google adwords on the page, just not the slow, obnoxious flash-based ads. So if Google explains that adwords will make a reappearance I would be fine with it. I am not anti-ads, I am anti-eyesore and anti-slow-flash-crap.

  • by Lord Bitman (95493) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @05:27AM (#32961532) Homepage

    If you don't want to see the ad, don't go to the site.

  • by Lord Bitman (95493) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @05:45AM (#32961630) Homepage

    can't we come to a compromise?
      Assholes who fill websites with so many ads that the actual content is unreadable are Assholes.
      Assholes who install software to remove the ad-part while still viewing the content-part are Assholes.

    If only one of those two assholes existed, evolution would probably take care of them a lot quicker.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @05:48AM (#32961650)

    How do you suggest they stop it then since chromium is open source?

  • its an arms race (Score:3, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquare&gmail,com> on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @05:55AM (#32961690) Homepage Journal

    there already exist pages that will not load the genuine content until the page actually responds with verification that the ad content has loaded in the browser

    the ad content will say send a code via ajax back to the server: "i'm now alive in the browser, showing dancing mortgage seekers... ok send the article"

    if enough people block ads, this will be the norm

    i'm annoyed by intrusive ads and interstitials and articles broken out over 15 pages like everyone else, but the publisher needs to make cash to keep publishing the content you want, and they will feel the pressure to escalate the arms race. hopefully they will understand their ads shouldn't be too intrusive, but its been my experience that sites where the ads are too intrusive are sites without any content worth my time anyways

    you don't really have to block ads, you just have to find quality sites

  • by icebraining (1313345) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @06:30AM (#32961872) Homepage

    What you're describing is exactly how this new adblocker (as Firefox's adblocker always has) works: it blocks the ads *before* the browser tries to fetch them. So no fetch, no DNS request.

    And the HOSTS file is more insecure as a solution because it either:

    1) Has no update mechanism
    or
    2) Has update mechanism that depends on a daemon that requires access to the internet *and* access to important files like HOSTS.

    While this adblocker only requires access to browser profile files.

  • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @06:46AM (#32961992)

    no, I think its more down to the type of Ads that are blocked. Block Google adwords? Pointless.

    Block a non-Google flash-based flashing lights and scrolling text and attention-catching beeps, you betcha.

    In other words, adblocking is actually beneficial to Google as it gives Google ads more marketshare (ie by reducing the competition).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @07:12AM (#32962088)

    I don't want to block them, and I think people who do block them are assholes. But I don't want to wait for them.

    At almost $2 per megabyte of transfer, you best be paying ME to look at your ads.

    Just because I block ads on my cellular modem does not make me an asshole. It does say something about your expectations however

  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @07:55AM (#32962352)

    So, if Google makes a good ad blocking system that is included by default, many people will just use that. That means they can control what it does, and what defaults it has. Thus maybe by default it only blocks annoying ads. It stops interstitials, animated crap, popups/unders and so on. However it permits text ads and simple banner ads, which is what Google does. So people say "Ahh this is nice, the Internet isn't annoying," and don't go looking for anything else, or even adjusting the settings.

    You have to remember many people don't hate ads, what they hate is ANNOYING ads. I personally don't mind ads, sometimes they are even interesting. I don't run ad block because I appreciate sites need to make money. However I do run Flashblock because I hate annoying ads and that's what they usually are. I hate ads that interrupt my browsing, or that put a heavy load on my system. So an adblock software that just blocks the annoying shit would be ok in my book.

    If they include nothing, people have to look elsewhere. Maybe what they get is an app written by a "No ads at all ever," kind of zealot that just straight blocks everything, including Google. that hurts them, of course.

    As such by being pragmatic about it, they can have a measure of control over it. If they just try to pretend it doesn't exist, they may get something they don't want.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @08:14AM (#32962494)

    If you don't want me to see your site for free, don't put it on the internet.

  • Re: a sad day (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geminidomino (614729) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @08:39AM (#32962676) Journal

    The only port they block is 21 (IIRC) to pretend they're fighting spambots.

    Either the spambots have started using FTP (slippery fuckers!) or you meant 25. ;)

  • Re:Exactly! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @08:46AM (#32962738) Homepage Journal

    I want free content without ads. I'm more than willing to let sites die if they can't provide me with this. Life is too short to subject yourself to unnecessary advertising. I create free web content without ads, so I put my effort where my mouth is. Hmm, that doesn't sound right...

  • by ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @09:01AM (#32962884)

    It may shock some people, but there was an Internet (and a web) before there were commercially supported websites.

    It was smaller, but it worked just fine. In fact, it worked beautifully. Many of us want it back.

  • Re:Exactly! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 20, 2010 @09:15AM (#32963050)

    The issue is not that black-and-white. Back when I first got onto the Internet, ads were limited to a banner at the top and maybe another one on the side rail. They were barely animated, and they didn't make noise. They were just there, not bothering anyone but the most anti-consumer pricks. That peaceful time on the ad front was short-lived, as advertisers weren't happy with just letting their ads stay in the normal rotation. No, they needed to start engaging in a loudness war. First it was pop-ups... slightly annoying but easy to deal with. Then the banner ads started getting more animated, and some advertisers discovered that they could add sound. Well, that created another loudness war, with flash-driven ads trying to yell over each other. Of course, once pop-up blockers got popular, they moved to using positioned divs to circumvent them.

    I currently have an ad blocker on my web browser. I put it there because of this escalation of annoyance. You can't just say "don't go to those sites" because nearly every site has them. Sure, the web-masters have a little control over pulling the more abusive ones out of the rotation, but that takes time and when you have an abusive ad on your site driving away readers, time is not on your side. The only alternative is ad-blocking. Now, that alternative isn't as big a false dilemma as you would think. I have a system that I use for blocking that I think is fair for everyone who acts in good faith. I start with the recommended filter that AdBlock Plus gives you. Then, I periodically disable it for my regular sites. I note which ad services are behaving and I add them to the whitelist. Of course, if they start to get annoying, I just remove them from the whitelist and use whatever means of reporting abusive ads that the webmaster provides. The webmaster still gets ad revenue from me and I only have to suffer an occasional annoying ad. Maybe if more people did that it would provide a disincentive to produce loud, obnoxious ads.

PLUG IT IN!!!

Working...