[jicks]

The criteria is not discretionary. They'll block ads that don't follow the guidelines defined by the Coalition for Better Ads [0] (Google is a member, but there is a lot of other members, like Facebook, ...). So yes, they'll block a site which has non-conforming Google ads.

[0] : https://www.betterads.org/

[SmellyGeekBoy]

Which of course raises the question - if they have the technology to detect these ads, why allow them on their network in the first place?

[kodablah]

Depends on how you define discretionary here. I say it's discretionary if a human chooses instead of a computer with clearly defined constraints. So if it's not discretionary, can you tell me what the specific rules are for determining something is an ad as opposed to some other kind of image?

[nailer]

I understand this, and believe it's true, but: gmail mobile has a full page ad asking you to download the app. I'll be surprised if Google block it.

[scrollaway]

There's a difference between a site willfully destroying UX on mobile versus including a third party's paid content.

Reddit mobile also has a full page ad asking you to download the app. I also doubt Google would block that. Nothing to do with it being "Google".

[CaptSpify]

I personally don't see a difference. They are putting a notice up that is trying to entice me to "buy" something. Why does it matter if it's from a 3rd party or not?