With no inside knowledge of this team or feature, this appears to be almost the exact same feature MS shipped in the IE6 betas over 20 years ago, though without the ability for 3p to integrate with it:
Excellent historical perspective. So many attempted and discarded ideas are being rediscovered/tested to see if they make sense in the current environment.
I expect someone to re-attempt a browser with built-in ads like Opera used to have way back.
As squirmish as this makes me, this is exactly the kind of thing that the original architects of the web imagined when they describe the browser as a "user agent" - that the browser doesn't have to show you exactly what the server sent you.
The user's agent is free to transform the data sent by the server in any way, and users will seek out agents that do useful things for them.
As a developer I'm uncomfortable with the idea that some browser or extension might break my site, or that I may break the customization with an update, but the idea here is really powerful. I don't think it's ever caught on much though. I think most extensions that do this kind of thing have pretty solidly failed.
It's certainly a powerful idea, but I wonder how well it translates to users that don't even know what a browser is, let alone understand what it means for that to be "acting as their agent".
If the original architects of the web didn't foresee corporations owning the browser so they can inject ads and propaganda into a publisher's content, of what use was the vision?
AI has got people thinking about this again. I'm hopeful that there will be at least some browser features that will genuinely act on the users behalf in a largely adversarial online information environment.
Was initially surprised that Google would have the nerve to do something like this until I realized that there's literally an app just called "Google" that doesn't seem to be a full blown web browser. The described opt out process is shitty, but realistically this seems like exactly the type of thing that someone using the dedicated Google app would appreciate. I do wonder if Google defaults to its own link or the website's link when there's an existing hyperlink in place.
That is even funnier to me than the original post! Even Google's non-existant cancellation reps are terrible at their jobs. Like, Google Lens, which recognizes nothing, and Gemini, which is the worst of everything, THOSE are the things you are relying on to stop me from leaving? Really? Okay-ish search would maybe make me chance a free-trial to a paywall.
It's got 2m reviews where as Chrome iOS only has 1.9m. It's effectively a full browser. In other words, like Google and chat apps, they've got multiple browsers on iOS.
Ad networks used to inject “search” links all over the web that opened ad popups on hover. If I remember correctly, it was that obnoxious behavior that first spurred me to look for an ad blocker. Full circle!
How is this any different than selecting the text and going to “Look Up” that exists natively anywhere in the OS?
I suppose one aspect is that it looks like a link the website creator has made themselves which might therefore be deceptive? Whereas the OS context menu is obviously from the OS.
Yeah. It's fairly likely the ads link to a URL with a recognizable pattern. Failing that, if an ad is reproducible we can iterate with a site owner to detect the DOM modification a few different ways. I've drafted a blog post to collaborate with others on reverse engineering this: https://push.cx/google-ad-injection
Ahem, "don't let the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya"
Most of us recognize that YOU think that, however, it is not what many of us think and also we just want to get things done without folks like you stopping us...and you are stopping us by mastodoning the entire internet.
With no inside knowledge of this team or feature, this appears to be almost the exact same feature MS shipped in the IE6 betas over 20 years ago, though without the ability for 3p to integrate with it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_tag_(Microsoft)
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2167301/what-is-the-purp...
https://alistapart.com/article/smarttags/
Response was extremely negative and the feature was removed. The only thing remaining is the opt-out meta tags all over the web.
Excellent historical perspective. So many attempted and discarded ideas are being rediscovered/tested to see if they make sense in the current environment.
I expect someone to re-attempt a browser with built-in ads like Opera used to have way back.
Brave does this
As squirmish as this makes me, this is exactly the kind of thing that the original architects of the web imagined when they describe the browser as a "user agent" - that the browser doesn't have to show you exactly what the server sent you.
The user's agent is free to transform the data sent by the server in any way, and users will seek out agents that do useful things for them.
As a developer I'm uncomfortable with the idea that some browser or extension might break my site, or that I may break the customization with an update, but the idea here is really powerful. I don't think it's ever caught on much though. I think most extensions that do this kind of thing have pretty solidly failed.
Yes, but usually the “user” in “user agent” refers to the person using the browser, not the advertising company that controls it.
It's certainly a powerful idea, but I wonder how well it translates to users that don't even know what a browser is, let alone understand what it means for that to be "acting as their agent".
If the original architects of the web didn't foresee corporations owning the browser so they can inject ads and propaganda into a publisher's content, of what use was the vision?
Ad blockers are possible.
But will be nerfed due to Manifest v3.
https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/11peeuw/manifest_v3...
AI has got people thinking about this again. I'm hopeful that there will be at least some browser features that will genuinely act on the users behalf in a largely adversarial online information environment.
> user agent
With user-defined CSS style sheet?
Was initially surprised that Google would have the nerve to do something like this until I realized that there's literally an app just called "Google" that doesn't seem to be a full blown web browser. The described opt out process is shitty, but realistically this seems like exactly the type of thing that someone using the dedicated Google app would appreciate. I do wonder if Google defaults to its own link or the website's link when there's an existing hyperlink in place.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google/id284815942
Turns out I have this app, but it’s really not clear why anyone would use it. Or even why I have it downloaded.
I can’t possibly imagine they’d enable this behavior in chrome.
It used to be the only way to use Gemini on iOS until very recently. That was the primary reason I originally installed it.
Other than that, I believe "Google Lens" (i.e. picture search) was also exclusive to that app on iOS at least for some time.
That is even funnier to me than the original post! Even Google's non-existant cancellation reps are terrible at their jobs. Like, Google Lens, which recognizes nothing, and Gemini, which is the worst of everything, THOSE are the things you are relying on to stop me from leaving? Really? Okay-ish search would maybe make me chance a free-trial to a paywall.
It's got 2m reviews where as Chrome iOS only has 1.9m. It's effectively a full browser. In other words, like Google and chat apps, they've got multiple browsers on iOS.
Ad networks used to inject “search” links all over the web that opened ad popups on hover. If I remember correctly, it was that obnoxious behavior that first spurred me to look for an ad blocker. Full circle!
How is this any different than selecting the text and going to “Look Up” that exists natively anywhere in the OS?
I suppose one aspect is that it looks like a link the website creator has made themselves which might therefore be deceptive? Whereas the OS context menu is obviously from the OS.
Arguably the context menu is generally understood to be (at least partially) browser- or OS-supplied, compared to things that look like hyperlinks.
There's no excuse for thinking, in 2024, that the endgame of this feature is something meant to benefit users and not the ad company.
It's no different than that and it's not deceptive least of which because it happens inside the Google search app.
Half the discussions on these stories are comments from people who can't read reacting to bad faith reporting.
If it’s like the YouTube comment search links, it’s going to be terrible. Just let me select anything and search for it.
I feel like this type of thing is popular on old-fashioned media sites like news aggregators, especially in Japan.
So Google is rewriting what your online banking site is showing on the fly?
"[...]opting out can take up to 30 days, while the feature is live now."
Typical.
Does anyone have a reusable signature for the injected ads so a side can detect the tampering?
It’s not in chrome web browser, just the google app. So you can’t run scripts/etc afaik
Yeah. It's fairly likely the ads link to a URL with a recognizable pattern. Failing that, if an ad is reproducible we can iterate with a site owner to detect the DOM modification a few different ways. I've drafted a blog post to collaborate with others on reverse engineering this: https://push.cx/google-ad-injection
Website owners can simply opt out: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1h9I0TbN-H_1e85CqXYb1ng7rQfg...
Phishing Exercise #16,777,216 -- THIS TIME IT WILL VALIDATE. YES.
The link was in the article. I agree that it’s hardly a great way to create an opt-out system.
How is this not some sort of copy write infringement? Isn't this what slingbox got shut down over?
If it’s copyright infringement then ad blockers and a bunch of useful extensions will soon follow to the graveyard…
Apple should ban them from the platform for harming users.
Apple should not get to dictate what is and isn't harmful to me. That power does not belong with an OS or hardware vendor.
Ahem, "don't let the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya"
Most of us recognize that YOU think that, however, it is not what many of us think and also we just want to get things done without folks like you stopping us...and you are stopping us by mastodoning the entire internet.
most of "you" are consoomers who don't think about such things at all
How is that harming anybody?
probably the third party websites wouldn't like it.