Chrome is bypassing AdBlock
AdBlock Plus is a useful browser extension that was developed by Wladimir Palant in the year 2006 and allows the users to bypass various advertisements that are posted on the internet. It includes advertisements displayed before a YouTube video is played and other videos streamed by Google.
However, over the last few days, the users of this application have reported and commented on Twitter that Google Chrome is bypassing the application and forcing the users to watch the advertisements. Rather, those users who have installed the extension of AbBlock Plus on their Google Chrome browser cannot skip the YouTube ads like those users who do not have the app installed on their computer.
The method that Google has been using to circumvent the app is to convert the advertisement into a video as well. Therefore, the app considers the ad as a video and not an advertisement. Just the skip button is considered as the advertisement by AdBlock Plus.
However, internet users have found that by disabling AdBlock, they can skip the advertisements. Though it is an effective solution, the attempt by Google to block not just AdBlock but other similar applications means that what Google is trying to do is to infringe the rights of the internet users.
Applications like AdBlock empower users to exercise their rights of using the internet the way they want to and when they want to. By imposing such restrictions, Google is trying to infringe upon the privacy of the users and forcing them to watch content against their choice. This is a basic violation of the rights of the users and users have made it succinctly clear through Twitter.

However, whether Google will change its policy or AdBlock will find a way around this restriction from Google still remains to be seen

6 thoughts on “Chrome is bypassing AdBlock

  1. oh my f*** god, there are many things wrong with this article, this is basically the first time i am actually writing a "critic" to an article because this actually needs it.

    OK so 1st:
    "Applications like AdBlock empower users to exercise their rights of using the internet the way they want to and when they want to." oh and you forgot the (somewhat) stealing part since websites use ads to gain money, it's like evading taxes if you want to think that way.

    you may use the internet as much as you want and however you like it, but if a free website like youtube adds ads for whatever reason, it is not our job to complain, the website is not ours to begin with.

    if i say to a male stranger to start using skirts because i dont like jeans, does that make him feel obligated to use skirts??
    that is basically what people are doing, asking a website to stop blocking ad-blockers (in this case google to stop bypassing ad-blockers) when they originally mean for users to view the ads so that they can keep their free service.


    however if the website is a paid service and you agreed to a term ad-free and suddenly they add ads with out previous notice, then yes it is motive to complain and DDOS them over and over again until they learn the lesson and remove the ads.

    and im not saying i dont use an ad-blocker my self, im just saying that if ad-blockers are bypassed, who am i to say that they are the ones who are wrong and im right??

    it's like saying hitler was a saint and he was the good guy after he committed genocide after genocide.

  2. 2nd:
    "By imposing such restrictions, Google is trying to infringe upon the privacy of the users and forcing them to watch content against their choice."

    i know that ads use a "content id" like algorithm to identify users and see what they like more to display ads they most likely will like, there are non ad-blocker extensions that block ads to retrieve that id from us, you dont have to block the whole ad it-self because of the 1st reason.

  3. It just means Google is forcing adblock users to use firefox. That or use a web proxy that strips the ads before it is fed into chrome. They would rather make money than provide a usable product. Their loss.

  4. I so agree. Infringing on users rights! Don't go to the website then. If you go to a URL you are subjected to the sites rules not yours. If you do not like it go someplace else. It is the same concept of going into a store and saying I want to use this product first and if I don't like it then I wont buy it. NO

    You buy it try it and if not return it. Next you will be saying HOW DARE Microsoft spy on me with Windows 10. You bought the product and agree to the terms of that product if you do not like the terms DO NOT BUY THE PRODUCT!

  5. when i use TV i choose to change channel when play ads
    when i use newspaper in 90% i never read the ads
    when i use radio when they put ads i change channel

    WHEN I USE INTERNET WHY I MUST SEE ADS ? that is my only question ,,,

    ALL browsers must have a BIG HUGE F***G button to say , DO YOU LIKE TO SHOW ADS OR NOT … if one site make money from ads must find the RIGHT way to info the customers and not open 10 windows ads , or showing 1 article and 20 ads …. etc … is SO EASY … but the money is to much …

    bye bye chrome …

    John Nikolic

Comments are closed.