[KGIII]

You may wish to visit this link:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/1/15726778/chrome-ad-blocker...

By the way, a friendly reminder that EFF is happy to take donations and there are a variety of ways to do so.

[votepaunchy]

Blocking a few egregious ad types is not at all the same as the blocking of privacy-invading cookies as Apple is doing.

> The Chrome ad blocker doesn’t just help publishers, it also helps Google maintain its dominance. And it advantages Google’s own ad units, which, it’s safe to say, will not be in violation of the bad ad rules.

Don’t be evil, indeed.

[KGIII]

Right, but it's a start - meaning they might eventually get there. It means there is pressure and that they may be obligated to take notice. It's not the end, it is the beginning.

[romanovcode]

> Right, but it's a start - meaning they might eventually get there.

Get where, exactly? 88% of Google money comes from Ads[0], if you think their plan is to remove them from web you are either crazy or stupid.

[0] - http://www.businessinsider.de/how-google-apple-facebook-amaz...

[KGIII]

It means it's a start towards protecting the user and working towards privacy and security goals. They will still make money selling ads.

[tryingagainbro]

It means it's a start towards removing competitors ads as "bad ones," meaning "use Adwords if you your ads to show and bypass the ad-blocker."

[Karunamon]

This is needlessly cynical. At the end of the day Google ads are unobtrusive and sane and have some standards in their construction. No fake download buttons, flashing gifs, and so on. It’s not their fault that most of the ad industry sucks.