back to article Chrome's default-on ad blocker – which doesn't block adverts on 99% of websites – goes global

On Tuesday, as promised earlier this year, Google plans to begin enforcing ad quality requirements in its Chrome browser worldwide, based on the ad industry's conveniently self-defined standards. Online adverts that fall short of the advertising industry's Coalition for Better Ads' rules – which forbid particularly annoying ad …

  1. Starace

    The new definition of pointless

    An ad blocker from a company that basically exists to sell ads?

    Makes the chocolate teapot seem redundant.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The new definition of pointless

      And worse, they've rigged the system to limit the ability of users to install proper ad blockers. When Mozilla/Firefox was struggling to compete against IE, anyone remember what it was that really turned the tide? It was when it gained the ability to block pop ups, an ability IE lacked.

      All you need is for regular people browsing on Chrome to get bombarded with "approved" (i.e. google sourced) ads and have a friend show them the ad free experience they can get using Firefox + uBlock or similar. Chrome is going to be bleeding market share, but I don't see the Chrome group in Google ever having the power to go up against the ad group that pays all the bills. At least not until Chrome is back to a minority browser share where it belongs.

      1. teknopaul Silver badge

        Re: The new definition of pointless

        Imho google should be banned from making a browser. Dangerous vertical, and here they are abusing it again.

    2. alain williams Silver badge

      Re: The new definition of pointless

      An ad blocker from a company that basically exists to sell ads?

      Wait until they implement the most important criterion: block ads from organisations that do not spend a lot of money with Google. That will be the point!

    3. katrinab Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      Re: The new definition of pointless

      No, it is not at all pointless, afterall, there are other companies that sell ads, and those companies are competition to Google.

      Try visiting The Independent without adblocking installed, even on Chrome. The site becomes completely unusable.

    4. Basil II

      Re: The new definition of pointless

      No Google ad blocker will block Google ads.

  2. doublelayer Silver badge

    Brief summary

    If you like privacy, or security, or control, or diversity, don't use Chrome. That pretty much covers any Chrome-based article.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    See, we actually care

    It's a clever strategy. More and more people use ad blockers and their most common (and indisputable) excuse is about annoying ads, ads which take too much resources and/or distribute malware.

    So the ad slingers will self-regulate, play nice and generally adopt a low profile until ad blockers have become useless and disappear again, after which it's back to full screen screaming ads you can't get rid of short of pulling the power plug...

    After all their ideal world is one where "people" get fed ads 24/7 (preventing anything which could distract them from those ads), and ad blockers are the hurdle to clear to get there.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: See, we actually care

      All that they (Google etc) care about is the amont and quality of the data that is being fed into their AI system that controls the world. Their world that is. Not mine.

      1) Google is Evil

      2) Adverts are Evil

      2a) Adverts targetted at an individual are the worst of the worst form of Evil

      3) Google is Evil

      1984 was fiction and not a blueprint for the sort of society that Brin and co want to foist upon us. Sadly most of the world is just too dumb/stupid/drunk/stoned to realise what it happening.

      If any ever sees me using a Google made device, or Google developed Applicartion or Operating System software they have my permission to give me a kick where it hurts. I will never knowingly do this.

      F**K Google!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: See, we actually care

      I use an ad blocker to stop me being served malware by pwned ad servers after having been served up a virus in an ad from El Reg many moons ago.

    3. JohnFen Silver badge

      Re: See, we actually care

      "So the ad slingers will self-regulate, play nice and generally adopt a low profile"

      No, they won't. They'll continue on as they always have. The "acceptable ad" standard is proof of that.

  4. Claverhouse Silver badge

    Technical Difficulties May Occur

    Coming Next: Google's War on Tracking.


  5. Joe W Silver badge

    "based on user feedback"

    My ar$e.

    Block anything moving and containing / using scripts. Then we can talk. Otherwise: NoScript, Adblock, not using chrome.

    "Egregious resource use"? You mean like all those idiotic java scripts and several megabyte big pictures that are all the rage in modern websites?

    1. Anonymous Custard Silver badge

      Re: "based on user feedback"

      Can I add to that anything which plays annoying and pointless audio by default, and doubly so if there is no mute button (or even better to muted by default).

      1. Locky

        Re: "based on user feedback"

        AutoplayStopper can be added to @Joe W's list

        Stop those from working Mr Google, and you will find a lot of users searching for "firefox install"

  6. Dwarf Silver badge

    This is the first set of ads standards based entirely on direct feedback from tens of thousands of consumers on what they want to experience when they go online.

    And of course nobody said we want to be able to brows without being deluged by completely pointless adverts

  7. Dan 55 Silver badge

    "4MB network bandwidth and 60 seconds CPU time"

    I see they thought about mobile clients and set some really stringent rules.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well, duh..

    .. I don't like Chrome for the same reason I don't like Android: its origin is the world's leading spy on people, Google.

    Chromium, Brave, Vivaldi? No problem. Chrome, not so much.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Well, duh..

      I wouldn't be too sure that Chromium doesn't phone home to the mothership...

      1. stiine Silver badge

        Re: Well, duh..

        Where's the Joke Icon?

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    a huge step forward for our industry," a company spokesperson


  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    piHole config files ?

    Just out of interest, does anyone know of anywhere that offers a list of domains to kill off with pihole for the worst ad-offenders ?

    1. TheTor

      Re: piHole config files ?

      Go for the ticked lists ( if you want minimal disruption. for some others.

    2. Olivier2553 Silver badge

      Re: piHole config files ?

      /etc/pihole/adlists.list on your Pi Hole machine.

  11. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "Google shifting the playing field to its own advantage yet again"

    Given the backlash from developers and the public opinion that is shifting clearly away from accepting ads, I don't see that this shift is an advantage for Google.

    I have never met anyone who likes ads or finds them useful. Frankly, I wonder where all the clicks come from, because everyone I know is annoyed by ads and just ignores them, or goes into volcanic rage when a video autostarts and has no button to shut it down.

  12. adam payne Silver badge

    We are Google and we approve this advertisement

  13. heyrick Silver badge

    less than one per cent of ads failed to meet ad industry standards, ad-giant Google says

    And that's why I run a browser that blocks everything by default.

    I can tolerate adverts. I grew up with them on television and radio. But the big thing was that they didn't try to pwn me, steal from me, switcheroo from what I was looking at, etc etc.

    When the adverts meet my standards, then we can talk...

    1. quxinot Silver badge

      Re: less than one per cent of ads failed to meet ad industry standards, ad-giant Google says

      >I can tolerate adverts.<

      I can't. They're a terrible waste of my time at best, and attempted brainwashing at worst. And that's before they become vectors to screw up my computer.

      If you really want to sell your product:

      -Make a good product

      -Price it reasonably

      -Support it.

      Word of mouth will do your advertising for you.

  14. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

    Hey Google...

    Hey Google, how are ya? I don't use Chrome. Never will. Just thought I'd let you know.


    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hey Google...

      Hi Mr. Horse.

      Google here. We already know, and are working on it.

  15. JohnFen Silver badge

    Bad standard

    "the ad industry's conveniently self-defined standards."

    The ad industry's "good ad" standards are not just self-serving, but completely worthless as they allow the worst behaviors of ads.

  16. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    That's what I used to do...

    Some (many) are saying this blocker is pointless. But, that's what I used to do -- I blocked ad companies that did popups, and that did those ads that start making noise all on their own. (My new target would be the ones that start playing a video, due to high CPU and bandwidth usage.) That's it.. sites need their revenue, and the rest of the banner ads are easy enough to ignore (if it's useless) or (if the site does a good job of targetting ads) I can even be bothered to look at the ads and occasionally even click on one.

    0.1% CPU and bandwidth? I wonder how they came up with that number -- not that I'm complaining, I think the ad should sit there and use 0 once it's loaded -- but, my notebook, my parents desktop, they are rather antiquated -- firefox and chrome run well enough on them, but with high CPU use while a page is loading. I would guess a 0.1% limit would block every single ad on most pages (even the ones that are just plain text probably would use over 0.1% over 60 seconds to load...)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020