Google is breaking "Code is law"

Apr 8, 2018
375
1
18
#1
Just saw this article
https://www.cnet.com/news/chrome-will-block-intrusive-ads-globally-starting-july-9/

Google have now elevated themselves into a position of deciding whose ad placement is "appropriate", they will notice the website owner 30 days in advance before blocking all "inappropriate" ads on that site across all Chrome browsers.

Google Chrome now has a dominating market share of 67.18% according to https://www.netmarketshare.com/ , this move will put a filter on 67.18% of all mobile and desktop devices across the globe.

"Code is Law" means,
the computer program shall run as it is defined by predefined logic, without human intervention, it is the modern foundation of free speech.
For example, the computer you are using will not refuse to play the song you wanted to play because it has detected "censored lyrics" within the audio file. The audio file is merely a piece of digital representation of sound waves, the computer will execute the audio file, the exact procedure is defined by previously written code that turns digital file into sound waves, that code is regarded as LAW within the computer.
 
Apr 8, 2018
375
1
18
#2
I know some ads are annoying, but when the website owner wrote the piece of code that asked the browser to display ads, the browser SHOULD display it without question, because such code is defined in the specification of HTML, Javascript, or CSS, as well as the Google Chrome documents.
(some users can block ads using plugins, because the browser supports plugin in code, and the plugin has higher privileges above the web page, so no code law is broken)

What the browser shouldn't be doing, is submitting the web page you're viewing to Google, asking Google whether it is OK to display it. Google analyzes the content in the web page, saying some of it is not ok, instructing the browser not to display it.

This is breaking the "Code is law", they're artificially determining what is not okay to display on your browser.

Some ads are annoying, but as long as the functionality of "computer asking Google whether if it is ok to display the content or play the sound" exists, you will never know what you're missing out, they could be blocking ads, but they could also be blocking the truth.
 

Morte

Crib owner
Mar 31, 2018
617
3
18
#5
Is the ad placement on Crippical appropriate?
I got the ban hammer in my hand btw, getting a little rusty using it.
 
Apr 8, 2018
375
1
18
#6
Is the ad placement on Crippical appropriate?
I got the ban hammer in my hand btw, getting a little rusty using it.
Ads, where are they? They're so small I can barely even see.
OH MY GOD THEY'RE SO BEAUTIFUL, I'M CRYING 😭😭😭😭
(hahaa nice one dude)
 
G

Google lead engineer

Guest
#7
C++:
bool better_ads_standard(advertisement ad){
    bool is_pass_through = false;
    if (ad.origin == "Google"){
        is_pass_through = true;
    }

    return is_pass_through;
}
 

Morte

Crib owner
Mar 31, 2018
617
3
18
#8
(some users can block ads using plugins, because the browser supports plugin in code, and the plugin has higher privileges above the web page, so no code law is broken)
In that sense Google didn't even break the "Code is law" because the user chose to opt in an ad filtering service, giving Google higher privilege in code, allowing Google to block ads on his behalf without him knowing the technicalities.

What should be concerned is the centralization of the filtering service, they say "don't be evil" but why the moment Google Chrome gained dominating status they started this centralized filtering service? What was the intent? They could've done it 7 years ago but back when Google Chrome was a little shrimp, but if they started a centralized filtering service back then everybody would criticize this new browser of "censoring", crushing its momentum.

Now they got almost everyone on board, they're preying on the consumers that are too dumb to know and too lazy to switch.
 
Apr 8, 2018
375
1
18
#9
In that sense Google didn't even break the "Code is law" because the user chose to opt in an ad filtering service, giving Google higher privilege in code, allowing Google to block ads on his behalf without him knowing the technicalities.
But the browser wouldn't be purely executing the commands from first and second party (publisher and user), the fact that a 3rd party behind the curtain is overriding the first and second party's commands is adding exceptions, breaking the "code is law".

Like the Ethereum fork? They added an exception to return the stolen eth so it was called breaking the "code is law"? The exception was not previously defined in a code format but added by human intervention.

Google the third party is like a man behind the curtain to artificially change the predefined execution path of code, planting such service is breaking the code is law.
 
Last edited:

Morte

Crib owner
Mar 31, 2018
617
3
18
#10
I wouldn't dare to argue anymore with Chefbigdog the devops guy, his d♠️ck is so big it'll break my pelvis.

Seriously though, @ChefBigDog does make sense to me, I lost.
So if execution environment isn't predefined by the binary of the browser installation, but directed by an external service(Google), it would be breaking the "code is law".
 

Morte

Crib owner
Mar 31, 2018
617
3
18
#14
But the adblock plus and ublock orgin have servers that are centralized that host filter list though, but they're community managed, so I guess I'll trust the folks.