Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#71

Post by jakub_g »

weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

Quick question: is there an equivalent of ABP's CTRL_SHIFT_V shortcut in UBlock origin that opens the list of all the HTTP requests done by the page so I can block them manually one by one? Last time I checked I could not find it.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#72

Post by theg2 »

coldpie wrote: post #45
theg2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a magical world you live in where everything is free and no one needs to be paid for their work. Ads have been abused by companies over the years but whitelisting sites that whose content and services you value and don't abuse you with those ads are the only reason they can afford to exist. Edit: I get it, you don't want ads. People have abused them over the years and that's bad. My only point is that whitelisti…

I host a half-dozen websites out of my own pocket with no ads. I pay for an Ars Technica subscription and don't view ads. Hacker News doesn't have ads, yet here we are. Wikipedia doesn't have ads. I guess the world we live in is pretty magical!

Those are all subscription or donation (wikipedia) based examples. A lot of sites could never survive on those models or obtain the resources to manage them.

I'm all for blocking sites that abuse their users.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#73

Post by olb »

gorhill wrote: post #13
eli wrote: post #3

Headline is wrong. An update to the plugin was rejected (with the option to resubmit), but the previous version is clearly still in the store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa... I empathize with the developer, but Occam's Razor suggests this isn't anything more than a typically crummy vague Walled Garden app store rejection. I'd take their advice and re-submit.

Yes, it still is in the store as of now. However the email I received is titled "Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin". In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result. Assuming the email title is misleading -- let's say uBlock Origin won't be removed from the Chrome store, there is nothing sp…

> In any case, it's just impossible for me to figure what is the issue. I could spend a inordinate amount of time guess-shuffling code around for no result.

I’d caution against the shuffling code around to try to reverse engineer the approval rules. I tried the same with a similar extension (Adblock Fast) that got rejected for similar reasons (no reasons as far as I could tell). Result: my dev account got automatically suspended. I had to get a Google friend to get me unsuspended. Google seems to have added very aggressive automated approval and suspension rules. I’d reply to their email and see if they reply back first.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#74

Post by theg2 »

anc84 wrote: post #43
theg2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a magical world you live in where everything is free and no one needs to be paid for their work. Ads have been abused by companies over the years but whitelisting sites that whose content and services you value and don't abuse you with those ads are the only reason they can afford to exist. Edit: I get it, you don't want ads. People have abused them over the years and that's bad. My only point is that whitelisti…

The good old "there can not be free-of-cost content unless money is involved" fallacy. I am a member of many communities whose hosting costs are paid by the communities, the administrative tasks are shared by members of the communities, I "consume" many sites which only exist because their authors want to express themselves, I use sites that exist because people feel the need to share their knowledge and collections…

Not all news and content creation can be done as a side job or hobby. The people who do journalism, create content, or support that goal of quality journalism need to make a living somehow.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#76

Post by kiiski »

bcg1 wrote: post #49
neoeldex wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just switched over, but I'm wondering what you mean by blocking DOM? are you using lynx? CSS visited links are not able to be checked using javascript, so why are you blocking this?

Are you sure? Could someone add some invisible 'before: content()' (or however that works in CSS) inside of an a:visited rule, and then check the DOM via Javascript to see if that content is there? I haven't tried this, but it seems like it should work unless there is something specifically blocking that

That doesn't work. Browsers are smart enough to limit what you can do with :visited.

See for example: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Privacy_and...

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#77

Post by realusername »

weirdentropy wrote: post #15

I've switched over from ABP to UBlock Origin. UBO is so much faster than ABP, uses fewer resources, and does a better job. And, most importantly, they do not get in bed with the ad companies to arrange for acceptable ads. There are no acceptable ads in my view (no pun intended). I block ads precisely because they use my bandwidth, they are a vector for malware, they interfere with my viewing of websites, they track m…

Just a small minor comment, it's not possible anymore to leak browser history with CSS visited links like before because you can only change the color of the links now and not read it with the code. You can still make a page saying "click on the red squares" but that's about it.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#78

Post by coldpie »

theg2 wrote: post #72
coldpie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I host a half-dozen websites out of my own pocket with no ads. I pay for an Ars Technica subscription and don't view ads. Hacker News doesn't have ads, yet here we are. Wikipedia doesn't have ads. I guess the world we live in is pretty magical!

Those are all subscription or donation (wikipedia) based examples. A lot of sites could never survive on those models or obtain the resources to manage them. I'm all for blocking sites that abuse their users.

> Those are all subscription or donation (wikipedia) based examples.

That was precisely my point: there are other viable models than ad-supported.

> A lot of sites could never survive on those models or obtain the resources to manage them.

Tough shit.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#79

Post by Karunamon »

theg2 wrote: post #72
coldpie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I host a half-dozen websites out of my own pocket with no ads. I pay for an Ars Technica subscription and don't view ads. Hacker News doesn't have ads, yet here we are. Wikipedia doesn't have ads. I guess the world we live in is pretty magical!

Those are all subscription or donation (wikipedia) based examples. A lot of sites could never survive on those models or obtain the resources to manage them. I'm all for blocking sites that abuse their users.

They all abuse their users in one way or another. Tracking me across the web? How about no?

What about distraction? Is time free now?

And that's before we get into the malware vector problems. The few tenths of a penny you got for me seeing your ad is much less than my hourly rate for cleaning up a network infected with the latest 0day du jour.

Is your (the collective your) company going to compensate me when one of your ads destroys my machine? No? Then I'm forced to conclude that you want the benefit with none of the responsibility.

The blockers stay on.

*ed I realize this comment sounds mighty dickish but I'm quite tired of advertising apologists demanding that I sacrifice my privacy, security, and time to access their all-important text. I decide if and how my computer renders a given piece of markup - if your business can't survive that, welp, not my problem. Fix your broken business model.

Re: An update to UBlock Origin was rejected by the Chrome Web Store

#80

Post by thefreeman »

gorhill wrote: post #35
maxerickson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the block lists maybe considered code? Updating them at first start would fit the description of not having them visible in the package.

The filter lists which are selected by default are part of the package. An updated versions of these lists is progressively downloaded a few minutes after first install. But this has been like this since forever now, this is not new. This demonstrates the problem here, we are left to speculate endlessly about what the is the issue(s) according to the Chrome store.

Or you could, you know, email them like the email says to do.
Post reply on HN