[Admiral Beez]

Here's the article referenced in the video.

Google Search Is Dying

(There is good discussion on this article on Hacker News and Reddit)

dkb.blog

I have to say that I've not seen an on-screen or in-video ad for years since using AdBlock Plus and its competitors. Google won't make much money from me.

 

[jje1000]

Also to add to it:

Google must sell Chrome to restore competition in online search, U.S. Justice Department says​

Proposals include ending exclusive deals with Apple, forcing Google to share data with rivals​

Thomson Reuters · Posted: Nov 21, 2024 5:12 AM EST | Last Updated: 9 hours ago

Alphabet's Google must sell its Chrome browser, share data and search results with rivals and take other measures — including possibly selling Android — to end its monopoly on online search, prosecutors argued to a judge on Wednesday.

The measures presented by the Department of Justice are part of a landmark case in Washington which has the potential to reshape how users find information.

They would be in place for up to a decade, enforced via a court-appointed committee to remedy what the judge overseeing the case deemed an illegal monopoly in search and related advertising in the U.S., where Google processes 90 per cent of searches.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/google-must-sell-chrome-to-restore-competition-in-online-search-u-s-justice-department-says-1.7389230

 

[Jonny5]

I have to say that I've not seen an on-screen or in-video ad for years since using AdBlock Plus and its competitors. Google won't make much money from me.

There's definitely backdoor relationships between these ad-blocker apps and Google, especially the biggest ones. They collect data about the users which is what Google wants. They track what websites you use the blocker, so they know the sites you visit.
That's the only reason Google hasn't nuked them on Chrome. They could easily do that and they can easily out recode these firms far faster than they can adjust to whatever app changes they make.
They have a tacit arrangement with them to get something from them, usually massive amounts of user data. Even if anonymized, that's very valuable to Google than the 2 cents of ad revenue you blocked. Really it's a relationship that works for everyone involved.

 

[Admiral Beez]

There's definitely backdoor relationships between these ad-blocker apps and Google, especially the biggest ones. They collect data about the users which is what Google wants. They track what websites you use the blocker, so they know the sites you visit.
That's the only reason Google hasn't nuked them on Chrome. They could easily do that and they can easily out recode these firms far faster than they can adjust to whatever app changes they make.
They have a tacit arrangement with them to get something from them, usually massive amounts of user data.

Also Google is paid by advertisers by the % of viewers who clicked on an ad. By allowing Adblockers, Google eliminates those viewers who are likely never/rarely going to click on an ad, thus increasing the clicks per view ratio and their revenue. I use DuckDuckGo as our default search engine, but I don't know if that makes a difference.

 

[Jonny5]

Also Google is paid by advertiser by the % of viewers who clicked on an ad. By allow Adblockers, Google eliminates those viewers who are likely never/rarely going to click on an ad, thus increasing the clicks per view ratio and their revenue. I use DuckDuckGo as our default search engine, but I don't know if that makes a difference.

Yeah, I've seen that behaviour before.

There was a news website I frequented where it had ads as you scrolled down.
However, if you used an adblocker where one of the most prominent ad boxes would be there was instead embedded content from the corporate owner that was "Developer jobs currently available!" followed by a list of three jobs and a brief description of them with a link to their corporate careers page.

So in other words, if you didn't use an ad blocker they weren't interested in hiring you.