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

Google is banning Flash from its display ads

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 148 posts

Re: Google is banning Flash from its display ads

#91

Post by sandworm101 »

cpncrunch wrote: post #86
pdkl95 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? This still allows the ad tracking and other malicious Javascript, and it still requires you to recognize that there are ads on the page. The cost in mental effort is significant; if you think it isn't, live completely ad free for a month or two to reset your tolerance.

Ad tracking uses cookies, not javascript, and isn't "malicious" as such. If you're worried about that, just disable cookies and/or javascript.

It depends on the tracking. They are far more advanced than simple cookies these days. Some do use javascript to load things and/or report back without resorting to easily-deletable cookies. Whether something qualifies as malicious or not is a matter of opinion. Imho any tracking attempt by unnamed third parties (ie without my say so) is evil.

Re: Google is banning Flash from its display ads

#92

Post by jordanthoms »

dingo_bat wrote: post #87
finnn wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Samsung Internet Ah yes, I'm remembering why I hate non-Nexus Android phones...

Samsung Internet is, surprisingly, faster and smoother than Chrome. They have really optimized it.

Or rather, Google Chrome is extremely slow on Android/ARM: https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-andr...

Re: Google is banning Flash from its display ads

#93

Post by sparky_ »

jpwgarrison wrote: post #42
tyingq wrote: post #21

I suppose this means dropping it altogether (like from Chrome) can't be too far away. My only regret with that would be that we use flash as a way to allow one-button copy to the clipboard (using this http://zeroclipboard.org/ ). We had tried non-flash solutions, but none of them worked. This sounds like it might work https://clipboardjs.com/ , so I guess I'll be adding a backlog item to look at it.

re: dropping [flash] from Chrome - NOOOOO this is what Chrome is for! The only flash I have is the built in to chrome flash.

I also do this. Firefox is my primary browser but I have Chrome installed solely to view flash-based video sites.

Re: Google is banning Flash from its display ads

#96

Post by frik »

mschuster91 wrote: post #5
smaili wrote: post #4

I wonder if people may begin to go back to older browsers for surfing once ads have completely transitioned to HTML5 :-)

With people shifting their layouts over to Flexbox, relying on "box-sizing: border-box", "display: table-xxx" and friends, older browsers will mess up the layout beyond belief. IIRC some older browsers even failed to apply an entire CSS file if they couldn't parse a single rule - good luck with ::before, ::after, ::nth-child and friends. CSS, unfortunately, isn't really backwards compatible unless you invest a LOT of…

Many recently updated websites of unicorns/startups look very bad or often completely unreadable on older browsers e.g. IE 9. Can they live without enterprise sales?

Re: Google is banning Flash from its display ads

#98

Post by yohui »

jedberg wrote: post #20
chc4 wrote: post #7

Silly question: Do people not use Click-to-play? I thought it was enabled in browsers by default now, or at least Firefox.

I use Chrome Canary, which doesn't have flash at all, and it seems that most sites automatically switch to HTML5. Sometimes I'll go to a site in Safari or Chrome and and the flash won't play, but then I load it up in Canary and it works. I don't understand why those same sites don't just start with html5 if they already support it anyway.

Chrome Canary has Flash. Do you mean Chromium?

Re: Google is banning Flash from its display ads

#99

Post by [deleted] »

0x0 wrote: post #19

How can they continue to allow "video ads built in flash"? Isn't a video flash just like any other .swf, that happens to use the NetConnection, NetStream and Video classes? Or will they supply the .swf part and the advertisers just the .flv/.mp4 part? Also, what's to stop a "html5 ad" from inlining swfobject.js? They've fallen for malvertising before, so how could they not fall for an obfuscated swfobject.js? :)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN