Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Google Chrome already ships with an ad blocker (it is in the "site settings"). It is, however, very weak.

I think Google would love to block ads more aggressively, but the conflict of interest is so obvious it is going to be raining lawsuits the instant they do that.




A more aggressive ad blocker would block Google's primary source of revenue. So no, they have no interest in shipping an ad blocker akin to others.


It really makes me wonder what the internet would be like if google had built microtransactions into a browser to support their sites instead, or as a complement to ads (e.g. an advertiser can pay for your time on the site in exchange for an ad, and google would only middleman the ad negotiation, not the transaction).


I think the surreptitious tracking is the real problem. I don't mind ads on podcasts, because their tracking is explicit and opt-in ("enter our show's promo code on the sponsor's product page.")

Likewise Google Contributor did not reduce tracking, which is why I never signed up.


Exactly the way it looks today, because most people aren't willing to pay for content.


Got a source for that absolutely impossible to source claim?

People pay for content all. The. Time.


NY times has 3.5M digital subscribers. Netflix has 120M. There are 4.5 billion internet users.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: