I switched from Chrome to Firefox on Android because Firefox supports any extension you want on mobile, where Chrome doesn't support any extensions on mobile.
uBlock Origin alone has made that switch worth it. No ads in Google results either.
I'm really surprised Google's lawyers let them proceed with ad-blocking given all the antitrust scrutiny. Not because it makes them more competitive with Firefox, but because it gives them a competitive advantage against other advertising agencies. (You know that if your ads are run through a Google service they're safe, but why risk using another service?)
The fatal flaw in Google's approach is that they're primarily focused on visible ad features instead of privacy concerns. I'd rather have an internet full of flashing highway billboards than the current privacy nightmare of today.
I'd be 1000x more inclined to turn off ad blocking if there was any transparency about the data being siphoned up.
More ad blocking isn't the answer. More transparency around data collection is.
> (You know that if your ads are run through a Google service they're safe, but why risk using another service?)
From what I understand, the Ad Blocker will work on a per-site basis, rather than a per-ad basis, i.e. if you have bad ads on your site, all ads are blocked in Chrome, including Google Ads.
You can also use Brave, which is based on the Chrome codebase so scrolling and rendering are smoother. I love Firefox but I just couldn't hack it on mobile.
Yeah, firefox has been a pretty abysmal experience for me on android, it's slow, scrolling is janky, it crashes almost every time I try to use it... it's just been a bad experience all around.
enabling protection from tracking and fingerprinting also speeds up browsing. kill 2 birds with one stone.
as mentioned elsewhere in the comments, it's a good idea to set up the default browser in android to use the maximum of privacy and security settings together with the uBlock Origin addin.
I've used Firefox for the last 2 years on Android. In that time I've only had a couple of websites not work, probably because the Dev only tested with one browser. I've enjoyed browsing ad free and a couple of other features that Chrome didn't have at the time, like open tabs in the background when I click on links in other apps.
If you're willing to give Firefox another chance, it's a good time to do so. They've put a lot of effort into performance in the last few releases.
I'm also a regular Firefox-on-Android user, and the only thing I would criticize is that sometimes layouting of large sites gets the browser stuck for a few seconds (e.g. long HN threads with 100+ replies). I hope that gets better though when Stylo is enabled by default in a few versions.
You could also try the Firefox Focus which comes with inbuilt adblocker and tracking protection. However, it doesn't support multiple tabs and you lose all data every time you close the application. It's perfect for one off browsing sessions where you just want to look something up.
Personally, I have it set as my default browser, so that any links that I click on in other applications open up in it and then I also have my full-blown Firefox installed for when I need to do actual browsing.
Works out really well, as Focus starts up extremely quickly (uses the native Android Webview), and I usually don't need each and every link in my browsing history, and it also means that my proper Firefox doesn't get filled up with random tabs that I didn't close out of properly.
Note that if you're using FDroid it's called "Firefox Klar" (the upstream Focus depends on proprietary Google stuff, while Klar works without it). Note though that it has telemetry features (which are off by default for the FDroid APK).
> (the upstream Focus depends on proprietary Google stuff, while Klar works without it)
Do you have a source for that? I see this and things like "Klar has the telemetry turned off by default" thrown around everywhere, but then other people again saying that there's no difference beside the name.
And while I assume, the F-Droid devs actual did do some research, I'm not aware of German privacy laws being so strict that proprietary dependencies or telemetry would have to be taken out. (Klar is the localized version for German-speaking countries.)
Also, I was able to use Firefox Focus on my phone and I don't have the Google Play Services installed, which doesn't say much, but that's what I assumed people meant with that.
What about the Firefox Klar app available on the Google Play store ? It's incompatible with my devices(according to play store). Does it also have telemetry switched off by default ? What other difference does it have compared to the Firefox Focus app on the play store ?
If you go to the Radio Times website there's an ad that pops up several browser windows - and loses the page you were looking at AND triggers the phone vibrate.
pop over, pop under, full screen interstitials, those are ads that go too far and I would like to see removed.
Basically anything that messes up with basic navigation goes too far for me.
For other ads, I think it is fair to monetize your site so I don't want those blocked.
I think by autoplaying they starts playing when the page loads. There are a ton of news websites that put an obnoxious ad in the middle of the article.
I am not sure if video ads in the middle of Youtube videos would count. They seem more like TV commercials and seem to bother people less than audio on a page that only needs text.
I wonder if YouTube video ads count as "intrusive ads". Because YouTube was the tipping point that made me decide to install ublock origin. I also download Firefox for Android because I don't want my data to be eaten up by video ads when I'm browsing videos.
I generally dislike web ads, but I don't really mind YouTube. The ad plays, then goes away. You can even skip it after a few seconds. As far as ads go I think it's a very reasonable implementation.
It's really dependent on video. Some videos can be 20 minutes long and you have a skippable ad in the beginning only. Other videos are only ~6 minutes long and play an unskippable ad every 45 seconds.
It probably depends on monetization settings with the channel holder, but it's really annoying. The former kind, I don't mind, but the latter is almost as bad as cable TV.
Maybe it's a little different depending on your creator status, who you're partnered with, etc - but from my experience of monetising videos, there is very little control over the ads, for example, here's what I see when I choose to monetise a video.
I was an Android user for many years but what drove me away was the inability to set a system-level adblocker without rooting. The cherry on top was the inability to turn off the unique advertising tracking ID provided by the system. When I found myself setting up a weekly reminder to manually reset the ad tracking ID I realized I was never going to win the fight over control of my own device and I switched.
I don't know what advanced level jiu-jitsu the evil Google product managers are trying to pull off with this adblocker but I am glad I don't have to worry about it anymore. Though I am sad I lost what I once thought was a great champion for users.
> I don't know what advanced level jiu-jitsu the evil Google product managers are trying to pull off with this adblocker but I am glad I don't have to worry about it anymore.
There's two (not mutually exclusive) theories:
1: By shipping an adblocker themselves, the number of people who will install a third-party adblocker will dwindle, leading to less development of those and we might eventually end up with the only adblocker being Google-controlled, allowing them to slowly increase the number of ads seeping through without anyone being pissed off enough to write a proper adblocker.
They might even block other adblockers from the Chrome Store on the basis of them being unneeded now and clearly just security risks.
2: Their adblocker blocks ads by completely arbitrary criteria. "Intrusive ads", as Google calls it. But obviously, these criteria are cut out to mostly block ads from other ad networks. For example, Google unsurprisingly doesn't think that user tracking is intrusive.
Also, there's markets that Google can't compete in. Porn & piracy sites, for example. It's commonplace to have visually intrusive (and less broadly privacy intrusive) ads there. Google just doesn't have such ads in their catalogue and it would damage their reputation, if they did. So, by blocking those visually intrusive ads, there's a much higher chance of their ads being used there instead.
I think it's about controlling the conversation. Ad blockers are trickling down to mainstream adoption, and this is an existential threat to Google.
The best way to counter that is to redefine "ad blocker" to mean "Google ad server (Chrome)".
Google can't win this fight by telling people to not use ad blockers. They can win this fight by making sure that when you offer to benefit your aunt by installing a real ad-blocker, she responds "that's ok, I hear Chrome already has an ad blocker".
And of course, Google has all of the data needed to keep an eye on public opinion and how well this strategy is working.
Google's rumored criteria is all about the look and behavior of the ad with no consideration for data privacy implications.
Apple's taking the true consumer friendly approach and blocking based on prevalence across multiple sites. Google's approach arguably makes people less likely to install a tool that blocks data hoovering.
If you have Google Play Services installed, it will try to use it. If you don't, you can install the apk from here https://signal.org/android/apk/ which should auto update. Their permissions list is still kind of whack and everyone else on android except you is going to have Google in between every message so...
What is your new setup and how do you ensure system level ad blocking ? I personally use a combination of Privoxy and pihole and I just point my router to it. All the clients on my local network don't get ads on any of their apps/websites.
Block ads for all devices on your wifi with one DNS change. We launched early July and the response so far has been encouraging that such an Adblock is needed.
When you enable Limit Ad Tracking, your advertising identifier is set to null for third party apps. It is automatically reset to a new random identifier when you disable Limit Ad Tracking.
To be fair if all ads were as unobtrusive as Google's we wouldn't have a problem.
I think the fundamental issue is that Google's ads are more valuable (because they can target them really well - they literally know what you are looking for), so they don't need to be as obtrusive.
If you just visit a random news site they don't really know what ads to show you (which I guess is why they are more like TV ads - for cars, perfume, etc.) and those adverts are far more speculative and worth less, so they need to be much more obtrusive to earn the same money.
Even if some simple ads could be tolerated, the distribution networks failed. Not even Google can be trusted to show approved, nice ads. They either need a massive change, or they will be blocked completely.
I think the claim that the "vast majority" are against ads because of privacy is questionable at best. HN is not a good representation of the concerns of the "vast majority". I don't have any data either but my guess is that the average ad blocker user installs an ad blocker because the ads are annoying, not because of privacy. That's not to say that the privacy concerns aren't legitimate or that more people shouldn't be aware of the privacy concerns, but I just don't think that's the reality of why most people use ad blockers today.
If ads become less intrusive and annoying less people will use an ad blocker, but there would still be a market for the privacy conscious who block ads for privacy rather than convenience.
Disclaimer: I work at Google, I don't work on ads or Chrome, I do use ad blockers, my opinions are my own, etc.
Yeah, the first lawsuits are already warming up, but that might take years still. Plenty time for any competition to die off and then Google pays some one-time fee and gets to keep the monopoly.
Looking forward to seeing this mature and be tested by the community. For what it's worth, Samsung Internet is now available on non-Samsung phones and supports content blocking plugins (like Disconnect, AdBlock Fast, etc). It's incredibly smooth and polished as well, making it a great replacement for Chrome on Android as long as you don't need the Google account sync features.
Calling it an adblocker is pretty dishonest when it's main purpose is to enforce Coalition for Better Ads standards. It is not an alternative to wide spectrum 3rd party content blockers at all for people who care about a clean browsing experience.
It could block competitor ads, assuming it will be default enabled later when it hits general availability and the majority of Chrome users do not care about tweaking their settings.
I'm sure there will be millions of people who wouldn't know how to disable the inbuilt ad block, it would be interesting to see change in sites that don't work unless you pause the adblock.
Looks like they took a page out of Microsoft's 90s EEE playbook. If they can get things to go as planned, in 2 years ublock will be removed from the chrome store because it's "unnecessary" and before long we'll be served the same ads as now only with no way to clock them in chrome.
I've downloaded Firefox on my phone and computer and will now be migrating over.
Switching to Firefox Focus [1] is probably a better solution -- it's Webkit/Blink under the hood, but blocks ads/trackers and doesn't maintain a browser history.
I am beginning to think that the current ad bubble is probably fundamentally flawed and somewhat similar to the dot-com bubble. I said before that printing money using basic income would only inflate it. Ads are designed to increase consumption, and we have a debt-based economy.
uBlock Origin alone has made that switch worth it. No ads in Google results either.