Chrome to Start Charging You in 2018

[az99]

Looks like Chrome will soon be my former web browser.No way I will buy into this BS.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/google-confirms-ad-blocker-coming-to-chrome-in-2018.html

[joebedford]

drsteve wrote:
If they get rid of popups, auto play audio and video, and other ultra annoying features, I'll be happy to turn off my ad blocker.

I feel the same way. It's the really really annoying stuff that makes me turn everything off. A static photo is fine but junk jumping around on my screen is a no no.

There are already lots of sites out there that won't let you see content with an ad-blocker. For the most part, I leave the site. I think only twice have I disabled my ad blocker to view content.

We Canadians have to deal with a lot of geo-blocking too.

[drsteve]

If they get rid of popups, auto play audio and video, and other ultra annoying features, I'll be happy to turn off my ad blocker.

[Sam_Spade]

coolmom42 wrote:

It's a perfectly reasonable option, and nothing really new.

Did you read my posts on this subject ?

Knowing that:
Pass-though ads are dangerous.
They put you at the mercy of multiple other sites to display your pages in a speedy fashion.
And the previous post about YOU paying for the bandwidth to display something that you have no control over.

IF you know all that and you still think it is "perfectly reasonable", then you need to think it over a bit longer.

[wa8yxm]

I have two add blockers.. Why two? Well one is software, one is wetware.

YOu see. even if the ads appear.. I DO NOT SEE THEM. it's a mental block on the ads. so the advertising (And sadly the bandwidth) is lost on me.

Now the advantage of the software ad-block is bandwidth, when I"m paying for it. Ads burn up bytes.

[coolmom42]

az99 wrote:

darsben1 wrote:

az99 wrote:
Looks like Chrome will soon be my former web browser.No way I will buy into this BS.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/google-confirms-ad-blocker-coming-to-chrome-in-2018.html

Please reread the article you posted. Then come up with a means to generate revenue for the companies that are out to make a profit. If you block ad's the publishers of websites for news, entertainment, etc get no revenue and then what.

I did read it. What part did you not see about pay?

"visits a participating site using Chrome, they will see a prompt that asks them to either turn off their ad blocker, or "pay for a pass that removes all ads on that site through the new Google Contributor." If they choose to pay the fee, Google will take a 10 percent cut. If they select neither choice, they won't be able to view the website.

I already have an adblock extension on my Chrome. Several sites I frequent ask me to turn it off, in order to view their site. They are sites that have advertising, or offer an add-free subscription. So without people seeing the ads, the sites can't make any money from people without a subscription.

It's a perfectly reasonable option, and nothing really new.

[magicbus]

SCVJeff wrote:

stickdog wrote:
We're fulltimers may spend two or three days at a location then we're down the road. What I love about Chrome is I get Ads from the places we were 2 weeks ago.

Browsers are not clairvoyant. If you want updated locations, turn it on just like you did with the browser you use that DOES know where you are

Unless you are on a VPN, the servers you are talking to know where your browser is. The ad delivery services are not geared for relocation. When I fly cross country for business it take a few days for me to stop seeing ads from the other coast.

Dave

[eichacsj]

I take it those against don't have smart phones or do not have any apps. Many smart phone apps, free with ads, pay remove ads...nothing new here just moving to the browsers.

[DallasSteve]

The title sounds like Google is going to make you pay to use Chrome next year. That's not true. Google is going to make you pay to use ad-blockers in Chrome in some situations next year. Just in case anyone cares, I'm writing this using Internet Explorer. Microsoft has been very, very good to me.

[SCVJeff]

stickdog wrote:
We're fulltimers may spend two or three days at a location then we're down the road. What I love about Chrome is I get Ads from the places we were 2 weeks ago.

Browsers are not clairvoyant. If you want updated locations, turn it on just like you did with the browser you use that DOES know where you are

[Sam_Spade]

az99 wrote:


"visits a participating site using Chrome,

If they select neither choice, they won't be able to view the website.

Well that's pretty easy:
Either change browsers OR stop participating on that site.....after telling the owner why.

[DutchmenSport]

It is what it is, and it will be what it will be be. Our world is forcing us to be 100% dependent on internet usage. But in all reality, it is still possible to survive without using the internet at all. I can be done. So, if you use the internet, you get what comes with it!

[Sam_Spade]

darsben1 wrote:
If you block ad's the publishers of websites for news, entertainment, etc get no revenue and then what.

You are only seeing/telling part of the story.
(And your second post didn't change that fact either.)

I too saw no need for an ad blocker until two things happened:
First, many of the ads are "pass through"; that is the site owner gives somebody else permission to imbed links into it's content and change those links and their content at will. This is a HUGE SECURITY HOLE.

Secondly, "they" killed the goose that laid the advertising egg by not putting a reasonable limit on the number of ads that are served up.

I spent **** near a week trying to figure out why my Internet connection was getting slower and slower. When the pattern finally emerged, it was because of the BLOAT caused by multiple ads.....that were coming from other sites and those sites were slow. I can now replicate that problem pretty much at will by turning off my AdBlocker. Some sites I visit allow more than 30 foreign elements to load with EVERY PAGE that displays.

I do not feel sorry for those folks AT ALL.
When they assure me that there is some security screening on the pass through ads AND they agree to limit them to something reasonable AND sever their agreement with companies that are chronically slow.....then I will remove my ad blocking software; not before.

Also note that pages that contain ads that are an actual part of the site you are connected to are generally not a problem and won't be touched by "ad blockers".

[monkey44]

The internet started out as a tool for researchers to share data between universities, but as if often the case, has turned into a massive advertising media and a minor secondary research tool.

AND, more importantly, I believe most of the ads are wasted, and upset most web users. I know exactly how and where to get what I need, and no amount of prompting that interferes with my browsing will make me quickly jump over and buy something I don't need. I'm thinking most of you are of the same thinking.

Forcing me to look at an ad while I'm researching something else will more often make me buy a competitor instead when that time comes.

I've even noticed already that many sites open a window and say: You're using an ad blocker. Please turn it off to access our site.

[az99]

Wow! Some of you Chrome fanboys sure get butt hurt when anything is mentioned that you feel needs defending.
Most of the ads are pure spam. And yes I did work for free.

Sorry I posted it.

Sent from my Chrome browser.