Google Chrome Ad Blocking in Manifest V3 Will Be Enterprise Users Only

[engine]

Google's Chrome ad blocking extensions system, Manifest V3, will move to enterprise users only.
It looks as if Google has relented under pressure over the blocking of extensions.

Chrome is deprecating the blocking capabilities of the webRequest API in Manifest V3, not the entire webRequest API (though blocking will still be available to enterprise deployments). Extensions with appropriate permissions can still observe network requests using the webRequest API. The webRequest API's ability to observe requests is foundational for extensions that modify their behavior based on the patterns they observe at runtime.

[groups.google.com...]

Earlier story
Chrome Browser Update Might Break Independent Ad Blockers [webmasterworld.com]

[iamlost]

Google is afraid. Their business model is under threat from regulators and ad blockers.

gorhill (Raymond Hill) uBlockOrigin response to [github.com], - and see prior and subsequent comments in GitHub Chrome extension manifest v3 proposal #338 thread.

Note: forgot WebmasterWorld strips anchors et al: copy and paste URL

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-496009417

In order for Google Chrome to reach its current user base, it had to support content blockers -- these are the top most popular extensions for any browser. Google strategy has been to find the optimal point between the two goals of growing the user base of Google Chrome and preventing content blockers from harming its business.

The blocking ability of the webRequest API caused Google to yield control of content blocking to content blockers. Now that Google Chrome is the dominant browser, it is in a better position to shift the optimal point between the two goals which benefits Google's primary business.

The deprecation of the blocking ability of the webRequest API is to gain back this control, and to further now instrument and report how web pages are filtered since now the exact filters which are applied to web page is information which will be collectable by Google Chrome.

[Dimitri]

I wish uBlockOrigin would be allowing non intrusive ads, to support small publishers. For example, they could allow one ad per page if they want.

Edit: in fact, this wouldn't make sense considering the official goal of the uBlockOrigin module, since it's about tracking.

[mcneely]

Small publishers usually survive well in their local and regional ecosystems when it comes to all of their wonderful widgets --

First off, we worry so much about ad networks not being able to display their ads to the masses because of ad blockers, when in all reality, this is a bed that the ad servers have made for themselves from the beginning.

Secondly, a static ad never gets blocked -- There still exists simple scripting, that still works in these big boy browsers, that can rotate static ads all day long without fail -- The only trouble with these is that most aren't either interested in taking the time to set them up, or, know absolutely nothing on how to set them up even if they tried. This whole point and click and copy and paste web mentality we've got going on these days just boggles the mind. Ad servers love the fact that there are so many "small publishers" out there that know nothing, and they take advantage of that fact daily.

And finally, to top it all off ... selling local and regional ads isn't really all that difficult to do

[Dimitri]

That is because you assume that small publishers are necessarily working on local level.

[csdude55]

... Google is essentially saying that Chrome will still have the capability to block unwanted content, but this will be restricted to only paid, enterprise users of Chrome. This is likely to allow enterprise customers to develop in-house Chrome extensions, not for ad blocking usage...

[9to5google.com...]

[edited by: phranque at 6:00 am (utc) on May 31, 2019]
[edit reason] cleanup after splicing threads [/edit]

[graeme_p]

@mcneely, a wonderfully constructive approach. Lets see what we can make out of this.

@Dimitri is right that there are many small publishers who are not local but at least some should look at opportunities in this.

@csdude55 I would have expected enterprise users to block unwanted content at the network level, not in the browser.

[Dimitri]

Disabling ad blockers for enterprise users (if I understood, may be I am wrong), might have a signification and positive impact on publishers. Considering how many people are browsing from their job :> and also, if the browsing is for professional purpose, it also means higher paying ads. (in theory).

[mcneely]

That is because you assume that small publishers are necessarily working on local level.

Not necessarily

An assumption primarily based on products and services that might not take demographics wholly into mind -- The thoughts with the many are "Let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks".

If you're some kid sitting in an internet cafe in Malaysia and you're running your business out of a part time server in Perth trying to sell Russian brides to someone else in Toronto, then I can see where you might desire the world wide coverage, because, after all, there are plenty of Russian brides in Tobolsk already.

Most of the small publishers, whether it be for a service, or even a product, aren't normally equipped to provide their wares at a world wide level ... if they can go national, then that's a plus, but then even at that, they may not qualify to be considered a small publisher at the end of the day in that regard.
What is showing an ad in Brisbane going to accomplish when you've got all you can handle already in Vancouver and the surrounding Province?

We call them "small publishers" for a reason -- Their services and/or products are enough to foot the bill locally and regionally.

What good are the ad server services going to be when nobody sees the ad instances they've promised to their publishing clients? And as far as the networks themselves? They been writing out the dynamics of these ad services for years. The only thing that gets beyond their filters after that, are the static writes. Static has been so ingrained into the DNA of the internet that if you were to try to write it out, then there would be nothing left to see.

Static isn't something that most of these small publishers even consider any more. It's much easier to hand your business over to the obscure dynamics of the ad services so they can throw it at the wall to see if it sticks for you ... and all for a cost of course ... a cost that invariably benefits the ad services and not the "small publisher".

[Dimitri]

I think you miss the point that, here, we are talking about small publishers, developing web sites, and earning money from advertising, not small publishers selling services and products.

[mcneely]

earning money from advertising

... as in developing certain web solutions that might be geared to present content in such a way so as to garner a pay day from Google?

Don't know if many really know this any more, but there are ways to let the advertisers pay you instead of them paying Google so Google can pay you.

You could easily make bigger bucks CPM than Google would ever consider paying if your traffic numbers are high enough because of all of the great content you might have -- Your advertisers might actually get more bang for the buck if they avoided Google altogether because we all already know that Google is the wall that stands between small publishers and their success.

Trouble these days is that unless small publishers start looking at Google for the elephant in the room that it is, nothing is going to improve. Secondly, there aren't many small publishers out there that have the ability to sell ad space in a meaningful way, so they're stuck ... with Google.

And adding insult to injury in the ads industry, is here we have all of these pesky ad blocker solutions floating about that somehow seems to further complicate things as we wait around for an abusive ad server to afford us the pay day we somehow feel we deserve.

We already know the terminology, we already know how to do the math, and we already know what it's going to take to pay the bills at the end of the day, so with taking all of that into consideration, who's to say that we can't just eliminate the middle man and give it a go with ad sales on our own?

Oh wait ... If we do that, we might be de-listed. There's always that possibility since Google doesn't like that sort of competition, but then again, how did Google get to be the tallest hog in the trough any way? It promoted itself. It sold people on the idea that it was best thing going and the rest is history. No reason why small publishers couldn't just turn around and make that same claim as well, what with this being the Internet and all.

So do you just dump Google and fly by the seat of your pants? No ... you keep doing the Google thing while you build, and once the income exceeds the Google crumbs, you slowly phase Google out.

In my world, I've got a leg up in that my solutions are static across my web properties .. I need every possible advantage going forward as it might relate to all of this ad server blocking that's going on these days.

[C_Zalcman]

"Google is the wall that stands between small publishers and their success." - Looks like it's already become a reality ;(

[C_Zalcman]

There are any news about worldwide Google boycott by publishers, developers and end users?