Conversation

Replying to
lmao remember when Google used Chrome to do exactly the same thing several times for exactly the same reason and using exactly the same rationale
1
4
Replying to and
"we're saving you from all the bad advertisers out there who are completely unlike us in respect for users (and also coincidentally do not provide us with huge stacks of cash)"
2
2
Replying to and
They didn't really do anything with that because they were scared of anti-trust action if they started blocking ads on sites with ads hurting usability. They added a content filtering engine to Chromium and distributed EasyList in an optimized form but.. it's not really used.
2
The filter lists block their own ads too. The concept was that it would get applied to sites with invasive ads (in terms of usability and performance, not privacy) until they fixed the problem and appealed. As far as I know this never actually happened and it was an empty threat.
2
Safe Browsing is used to determine if it should be used. It's possible they enable it on sites that are considered malicious by Safe Browsing. I haven't heard of a single case where they deployed this based on the intrusive ads policy they were supposedly going to be enforcing.