It seems to not be true anymore. I checked last week to rent a car in France for the holidays, and all the cheapest options for small urban cars were EV (mostly Zoe).
Note that I only checked for big renting companies (Sixt, Enterprise, ...). I was very surprised!
According to the article, the ads deemed "overly annoying or intrusive" are defined by "the standards established by the Coalition for Better Ads, of which it is a member". Since it's not Google actually deciding this, how is that anti-competitive?
BTW, the Coalition for Better Ads has many members [0], including Facebook and other big ads providers.
I'm personally not convinced this will solve the issue, but I believe it's a least a step in the right direction.
> According to the article, the ads deemed "overly annoying or intrusive" are defined by "the standards established by the Coalition for Better Ads, of which it is a member". Since it's not Google actually deciding this, how is that anti-competitive?
The argument I see for this: because it's a group Google, an ad seller, is part of deciding what ads are allowed and then Google blocking violating ads. Arguably, by pairing standards with blocking, the Coalition for Better Ads, including Google, are jointly engaging in a combination in restraint of trade.
An anti-competitive action doesn't become less anti-competitive when instead of one actor with dominant marketshare, you add additional incumbent actors in the market into the decision process and make it an agreement to restrict what products are acceptable to sell and actively block other products in that category.
Let's take TV as a comparison. On TV the ads have guidelines on what they can do and show, set by the tv channel and the broader regulation.
On the internet, there isn't anything, it's the wild west. It can't hurt to get some minimal standards, doesn't matter where it comes from as long as it's enforced.
Online advertising has existed for over 25 years. [1] Online ad brokers (i.e., competitors with Google) have existed for nearly 20 years. It is incredibly disingenuous of you to pretend as if Google is in any way "forced" to play both gatekeeper and ad broker, like no-one else is trying to compete in that space. Developing Chrome was a deliberate choice by Google to position themselves to own the means by which users consume ads, search (ads), and video (ads).
Legally, it matters a lot whether it's the government enforcing rules which restrain trade or a private coalition including the major incumbent players in the industry being restrained.
> but I believe it's a least a step in the right direction.
Boy, I don't. Ask yourself why this is not an extension instead (even if installed by default)? Also, where can I download this ad list? Why do you believe lack of transparency is a step in the right direction? You really believe that the perpetrators are the best enforcers?
Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
Saying "According to the article" is not insinuating someone didn't read it. It's actually very close to "The article mentions that" which is the suggested phrase in your very quote.
The criteria is not discretionary. They'll block ads that don't follow the guidelines defined by the Coalition for Better Ads [0] (Google is a member, but there is a lot of other members, like Facebook, ...). So yes, they'll block a site which has non-conforming Google ads.
Depends on how you define discretionary here. I say it's discretionary if a human chooses instead of a computer with clearly defined constraints. So if it's not discretionary, can you tell me what the specific rules are for determining something is an ad as opposed to some other kind of image?
I personally don't see a difference. They are putting a notice up that is trying to entice me to "buy" something. Why does it matter if it's from a 3rd party or not?
No, they'll only block ads that don't follow the guidelines defined by the Coalition for Better Ads [0] (Google is a member, but there is a lot of other members, like Facebook, ...). Note that this may include ads provided by Google.
It is either naive or cynical to insist that a giant unaccountable organization will or won't do anything in particular with respect to its core business.
Why is it shorter? Both MOV and OR have one byte encodings, and with the OR you either have to use an immediate zero (which burns a byte) or materialize zero in some other way. As that email points out, the entire sequence would be shorter using a different addressing mode anyways. And a read-modify-write is definitely slower at runtime.
I wonder if it's because it's safer in that it doesn't change anything there if you've gone over the stack limit and into the heap? I know that -fstack-protect was designed a long time ago, possible before guard pages and before 64bit addressing.
If I remember correctly, the idea is to block ads that don't conform to the standards set by the Coalition for Better Ads [0]. Google is (as you can expect) a member of this coalition (just like Facebook and many other companies [1]).
I get Google ads on mobile that flash and mislead. Virus Scan! Battery Scan! Clean Your Phone! With yellow and red. So at least on Android, Google serves tons of shit deserving blocking.
Note that I only checked for big renting companies (Sixt, Enterprise, ...). I was very surprised!