谷歌浏览器拦截广告

On February 15, Google Chrome will start blocking ads on intrusive sites, and mainstream ad companies aren’t particularly upset about it. In fact, they helped Google make this happen.

从2月15日开始 ， Google Chrome浏览器将开始屏蔽侵入性网站上的广告 ，主流广告公司对此并不感到特别不满。 实际上，他们帮助Go​​ogle实现了这一目标。

But you know what ad companies are upset about? Apple changing Safari to block unwanted tracking. Seriously: ad companies are furious. An open letter called the privacy feature “sabotage,” and Criteo, an ad firm that heavily tracks users, claimed the feature will cost them hundreds of millions annually.

但是您知道哪些广告公司对此感到不满吗？ 苹果改变了Safari 以阻止不必要的跟踪 。 说真的：广告公司很生气。 一封名为“破坏活动”的隐私权公开信和对用户进行大量跟踪的广告公司Criteo声称，这项功能每年将使他们花费数亿美元 。

Why are ad companies actively helping Google block ads, only to complain loudly about an Apple feature that merely blocks tracking? It’s less confusing than it sounds.

为什么广告公司积极地帮助Google屏蔽广告，而只大声抱怨仅屏蔽跟踪的Apple功能？ 它听起来不那么混乱。

Google希望阻止广告拦截浪潮 (Google Is Hoping to Stem The Ad Blocking Tide)

Google itself is the biggest advertising company on earth, so you might think it’s odd that they’re blocking ads in Chrome at all all. But Google and several other ad companies are part of the Coalition for Better Ads, a group that chooses categories of “annoying” ads that should be blocked. Sites that use these sorts of irritating ads—auto-playing videos with audio, prestitial ads with a countdown, and full screen rollover ads, to name a few—will eventually see all their ads blocked by Google Chrome.

Google本身是地球上最大的广告公司，因此您可能会觉得奇怪，他们根本没有在Chrome中屏蔽广告。 但是Google和其他几家广告公司是“更好的广告联盟”的一部分，该组织选择应该屏蔽的“讨厌”广告类别。 使用这类刺激性广告(自动播放带音频的视频，带倒数计时的特惠广告和全屏滚动广告等)的网站最终会看到其所有广告均被Google Chrome屏蔽。

Odd as it sounds, blocking these ads could actually be good for the ad industry. If websites that regularly serve up annoying ads are punished for it, fewer sites will feel tempted to use those sorts of ads. This should lead to a less annoying internet, which means fewer people will go through the trouble of installing a separate ad blocker. This could also mean better prices for the less annoying sorts of ads.

听起来很奇怪，屏蔽这些广告实际上可能对广告行业有利 。 如果经常投放烦人广告的网站受到惩罚，那么就会有更少的网站愿意使用此类广告。 这将导致不那么烦人的互联网，这意味着更少的人会遇到安装单独的广告拦截器的麻烦。 这也可能意味着较烦人的广告价格更高。

Make no mistake: this is an ad blocker designed to benefit advertising companies. Consumers will also benefit from seeing fewer annoying ads, but that’s not the reason the feature is being offered in Google Chrome.

别误会：这是一种旨在使广告公司受益的广告拦截器。 减少烦人的广告也将使消费者受益，但这不是Google Chrome提供此功能的原因。

您正在被监视。 不断。 (You’re Being Watched. Constantly.)

Meanwhile, and this isn’t exactly headline news, there are many ways for websites track you online. Odds are several different companies are tracking you on any given website, many by using what’s called cross-site tracking. This is when an embedded feature on a website—an ad, say, or an embedded video or “Like” button—uses cookies to track your activity on sites across the web.

同时，这也不是头条新闻， 网站可以通过多种方式在线跟踪您 。 奇怪的是，有几家不同的公司在任何给定的网站上跟踪您，很多公司都使用所谓的跨站点跟踪。 这是指网站上的嵌入式功能(例如广告或嵌入式视频或“赞”按钮)使用Cookie来跟踪您在整个网站上的活动。

It’s this sort of tracking that Safari’s Intelligent Tracking Prevention is designed to stop. Basically, only cookies from sites you visit directly regularly are saved by your browser; the rest are deleted regularly. Unless you make it a habit to visit the homepages of ad networks regularly, that will include most ads.

Safari的Intelligent Tracking Prevention旨在阻止这种跟踪。 基本上，浏览器只会保存您直接访问的站点中的cookie。 其余的将定期删除。 除非您养成定期访问广告网络首页的习惯，否则它将包含大多数广告。

Ad companies think this is unfair, as they stated in an open letter:

广告公司认为这是不公平的，正如公开信中所述 ：

Blocking cookies in this manner will drive a wedge between brands and their customers, and it will make advertising more generic and less timely and useful.

以这种方式阻止Cookie会在品牌及其客户之间打入楔形，这将使广告变得更通用，更不及时，更有用。

Apple, for their part, say that ad companies have simply gone too far. To quote a company spokesperson:

苹果方面则表示，广告公司已经走得太远了。 引用公司发言人的话：

Ad tracking technology has become so pervasive that it is possible for ad tracking companies to recreate the majority of a person’s web browsing history. This information is collected without permission and is used for ad re-targeting, which is how ads follow people around the Internet.

广告跟踪技术已经变得非常普遍，以至于广告跟踪公司可以重新创建一个人的大部分网络浏览历史记录。 此信息未经许可即被收集，并用于广告重新定位，这是广告如何跟踪互联网上人们的方式。

There are reasonable arguments to be made for both sides here, but basically both companies are arguing for their economic best interest. Ads supplemented with information about your browsing history are way more profitable, so of course ad companies are going to argue for them. Apple, meanwhile, increases customer’s trust by blocking the kind of tracking that users find creepy, so more people will buy their computers and phones—all without costing Apple much of anything.

双方都有合理的论据，但基本上，两家公司都在为自己的最佳经济利益而争论。 补充了有关您的浏览历史记录的信息的广告利润更高，因此广告公司当然会为他们辩护。 同时，苹果通过阻止用户发现令人毛骨悚然的跟踪方式来提高客户的信任度，因此更多的人将购买他们的计算机和电话-所有这些都无需花费苹果很多钱。

苹果不在乎广告收入 (Apple Doesn’t Care About Ad Revenue)

Google might sell hardware, but they’re an advertising company first and foremost. That’s how Google makes the vast majority their money, so it’s unlikely Google would ever do anything that would actually hurt advertising revenue.

Google可能出售硬件，但首先是一家广告公司。 Google就是这样赚钱的，所以Google不可能做任何会实际损害广告收入的事情。

Apple, meanwhile, makes basically all of their money from selling hardware and services, and next to nothing from advertising revenue. This means they see advertising less as a source of revenue and more as a potential annoyance for their users. To quote Matt Rosenberg:

与此同时，苹果公司基本上全部的收入都来自销售硬件和服务，而广告收入几乎没有。 这意味着他们将广告视为收入的来源，而不是其用户的潜在烦恼。 引用马特·罗森伯格 ：

Apple doesn’t rely on an ad business, so they are prioritizing user experience. The fact that it is a choice between ad tech and user experience doesn’t speak well for what ad tech has been doing.

苹果不依赖广告业务，因此他们优先考虑用户体验。 在广告技术和用户体验之间做出选择是一个事实，这并不足以说明广告技术的表现。

Advertisers have gotten used to knowing basically everything that you do online, so they see features like Apple’s privacy feature as a threat. And they’re right: this will cost them money. Way more than Google actually blocking some ads.

广告客户已经习惯于基本了解您在网上所做的一切，因此他们将诸如Apple的隐私功能之类的功能视为威胁。 他们是对的：这会花钱。 远比Google实际屏蔽某些广告要多。

Which is all to say that it’s worth thinking about how the various tech companies you interact with make money, because it basically impacts the sorts of things they value. Google wants the internet to be free and ad-supported, whereas Apple wants their customers to feel like someone has their back. Both of these are legitimate strategies, and you can decide for yourself which is better aligned with your interests.

就是说，值得思考的是，您与之互动的各种科技公司如何互动，因为这基本上会影响他们所重视的事物。 Google希望互联网是免费的并且有广告支持，而Apple希望他们的客户感觉有人支持。 这两种都是合法的策略，您可以自己决定哪个更符合您的兴趣。

Photo credit: Jeramey Lende/Shutterstock.com

图片来源： Jeramey Lende / Shutterstock.com

翻译自: https://www.howtogeek.com/342297/why-ad-companies-love-googles-ad-blocker-but-hate-apples-privacy-features/

谷歌浏览器拦截广告