<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>CoryG89</author><text>I always suspected the reason we never got extensions in mobile Chrome is that they didn&amp;#x27;t want the ad blockers. I wasn&amp;#x27;t aware that Firefox mobile started supporting them. Going to give it a try.</text><parent_chain><item><author>forgotpwtomain</author><text>On mobile Chrome does not support extensions while Firefox does. Recently on acquiring a new phone I used Chrome for a few days -- I had entirely forgotten how terrible the user-experience is without UBlock!</text></item><item><author>TechRemarker</author><text>At first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would incredibly increase the number of ads blocked.&lt;p&gt;My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use their built in blocker rather than downloading a third party extension which would highly likely block there ads. And if people have a built in blocker that blocks the mostly bad ads, the people would start to hate ads less and be okay with &amp;#x27;good ads&amp;#x27;. Also since people wouldn&amp;#x27;t use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s a very risky move on Google&amp;#x27;s part, so would be a bit surprised if it happens. But doing nothing, is equally if not more risky in the long run for there business model.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser</title><url>https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-ad-blocking-feature-in-popular-chrome-browser-1492643233</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>altern8tif</author><text>Go with Brave on mobile (&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.brave.com&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.brave.com&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;).  They&amp;#x27;ve got an ad-blocker built in.</text><parent_chain><item><author>forgotpwtomain</author><text>On mobile Chrome does not support extensions while Firefox does. Recently on acquiring a new phone I used Chrome for a few days -- I had entirely forgotten how terrible the user-experience is without UBlock!</text></item><item><author>TechRemarker</author><text>At first it sounds insane that Google would do such a thing since while ad blocking is growing, enabling the feature natively especially by default would incredibly increase the number of ads blocked.&lt;p&gt;My guess is, that where other blockers by default can easily block all google ads, Chrome blocker would not block Google Ads because it would classify them as acceptable. And Google would then hope that people would use their built in blocker rather than downloading a third party extension which would highly likely block there ads. And if people have a built in blocker that blocks the mostly bad ads, the people would start to hate ads less and be okay with &amp;#x27;good ads&amp;#x27;. Also since people wouldn&amp;#x27;t use third party blockers as much those companies would go out business more likely.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s a very risky move on Google&amp;#x27;s part, so would be a bit surprised if it happens. But doing nothing, is equally if not more risky in the long run for there business model.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Google plans ad-blocking feature in Chrome browser</title><url>https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-plans-ad-blocking-feature-in-popular-chrome-browser-1492643233</url></story>