http://www.express.co.uk/life-style /science-technology/8483

>>62203595
why would people want to make money on those kinds of sites?

>>62203622
To cover the cost of servers/bandwidth?

>>62203926
they can do so through donations instead of really fucking awful and invasive ads?

>>62203595
>Killing off all ads that are not funding Google
I usually believe in fairly lax regulations, but it's honestly time the government stopped Google.

They have far too much power, far too much control, over the global economy and the internet.
They need to be broken up and anti-monopoly measures taken.

File: 1499901490813.png (208KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 396x385px

>>62203595
torrents and other "illegal" sites are already muted by google search itself, i dont get this

>>62204010
no they arent
maybe in your region lmao
and they made no money through ads so this won't impact them

>>62203991
I get the feeling this will be getting quite the attention in Europe, given how Google has been anally violated by their anti-monopoly laws in the past.

This on the other hand is on a whole new level of anti-competitive. The EU will have a field day I'm sure.

File: bca.png (35KB, 1206x655px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1206x655px

>>62203595
>> The upcoming Google Chrome feature won’t block every advert, but will block ones that are deemed unacceptable.
The article is referring to these ads, retard
https://www.betterads.org/standards/
https://archive.is/FhBNw

>>62203991
While I agree that Google should be much more transparent, the government has never actually successfully broken up anything without either entirely ruining the industry (which can be a good thing if they exclusively fuck up the ad industry) or if they nationalized the industry (and then proceeded to fuck it all up through stupid decisions costing people more).

Up 2 u

>>62204010
There's a huge difference between one search engine among several not showing your site in their search results in one specific region (Burgerland), and legit killing off competing advertisement companies so that no site can get ad revenue unless they use AdSense which only accept certain very specific "acceptable" content.

>>62204068
The Ma Bell breakup was successful for a short period, then AT&T gobbled them all back up and is a monstrosity again.

File: 1481561491402.jpg (21KB, 412x351px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 412x351px

>>62204082
lmao, this cant be real. we need to work fast with adnauseam to kill these fucking jews

>>62204047

b-but but muh GOOLAG

>>62204047
> Implying that list is final
> Implying it's not just a small section of the final plans meant to encourage adoption

Just you wait until they start adding to it.

>>62204088
Yep.

>>62204126
In which case they should be pressured to revert the changes. As it stands now, the list is pretty great. Denying it because "muh google" or "muh slippery slope" is stupid. Objecting to the list because they aren't clear on which ad providers are allowed however is a great stance.

>>62203953
Donations are a meme. Like 80% of users will view ads but only 0.1% will donate and even then it's usually very small amounts. You can rack in thousands of dollars a month but you'll be lucky if you get $100 a month from donations.

>>62203595
>>62204126
>introduce "ad blocking"
>blocks only annoying ads like autoplaying videos and in-screen popups
>helps discourage people from using third party adblockers that block everything
>get more revenue as a result
Shitty marketing tactic but it's not as sinister as you're making it

>>62204198
only 0.1% of visitors will click on ad, same shit, and from ads you get few dolars but there could be actual donator that will give $100

>>62204198
Ads are a meme. That 80% of users viewing ads (lmao doubt) isn't going to bring you anywhere close to what the 0.1% of donations would.
The only way ads actually make money is if you personally create the platform and negotiate the deals (which some successfully do mind you). In which case, you aren't going to be hurt by these Google changes because most advertisers with actual money do not want to be aligned with full screen vibrating video ads.

File: TheDailyGoogle.png (39KB, 1353x448px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1353x448px

>>62204047
>>62204126
> Just you wait until they start adding to it.

I present to you the future of BetterAds Standards.

>>62203595
will this damage porn sites?

>>62204416
>t. paranoid retard
Get checked. You might have schizophrenia or something

>>62204595
> t. Not A Google Shill

Go away

>>62204574
Yes

>>62204636
great, no more porn videos for chrome users, google will kill itself with this shit

>>62204613
>using facts and evidence instead of baseless speculation makes someone a shill

>>62204655
I definitely see porn sites in the future basically blocking people using Chrome, and recommending Edge or Firefox or some other browser because of this, stating "Google is stealing our ad revenue so we block their browser" as the reason.

>>62204683
porn is a huge industry, normies will never admit it but they all watch it

File: 1276990430317-(n1291397026947).jpg (64KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x480px

>>62204679
> Hurr durr you might have a mental illness
> "using facts and evidence"

File: jew7.jpg (9KB, 188x268px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 188x268px

>>62204235
what they really mean is that only ads sold by google will be visible.

>>62203595
>* Killing off all ads that are not funding Google
>* By extension killing off ads a means of revenue for sites that does not qualify for Google Ads (Eg. torrent sites, "extremist" sites, porn sites, etc)
>* Ripping off Brave's "block ads and pay websites instead" idea

>websites makes ad blocker blocker
>they start blocking chrome
>people get pissed off
>people switch to firefox and edge
>google needs to rollback

Nice

>>62204416
>all of the ads in these examples are displayed in annoying formats
i'm okay with this, and all of these formats are actually used by "alt-whatevers", so
it's only your/their own fault.

>>62205209
they will probably get sued by those other ad companies too

>>62203991
Hopefully either the EU or the US do something. I mean, they fucked up a tiny little thing and left almost all of Japan without internet. They literally denied service TO AN ENTIRE COUNTRY. If that shit's not scary, I don't know what is.

>>62205647
>suing google
Yeah no. I'm pretty sure only people with a lot of money and time can sue such a big company.