141–150 of 320 posts
This is just a DNS filter. Why is it a big deal? DNS filters sort of work, but they're not new or magic. They trigger some ad-blocking detectors when the ads don't load.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about if they load them through *.google.com? Sure, you could whitelist www.google.com, mail.google.com, etc, but couldn't they keep ahead of you if they were ok with using their main domain? They could even start using www.google.com/ad-id
You really wouldn't want them on google.com/something since restricting cookies to sub-uris is a painful mess. Subdomains is slightly easier, but also easier to block.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google makes efforts to prevent ad-blocking: - Google Chrome for mobile doesn't allow add-ons so you can't install ad-blockers. (You can install browser extensions with Firefox for Android.) - Google Chrome uses a dark pattern where the address bar tends to send users to the Google search results page instead of to their final destination (compare the behavior with Firefox's). That means that even if you have an ad-b…
> - Android doesn't provide fine-grained permissions control or root access, so users can't block ads. One caveat here - Google devices are probably some of the most allowing of root access and full device ownership - easily unlocked bootloaders basically allow it to be a one button process. Some manufacturers make you put your device on a shitlist with them before they'll give you a key to unlock the bootloader and…
On Android devices with unlocked bootloaders, a great amount of apps won't work.
Android Pay, Snapchat, Pokémon Go, etc.
Google has tried to fight rooting as much as possible.
With all the ad blocking technologies that are coming up, I wonder if Google is devising something to counteract these efforts. For instance, since browser-based ad blockers work from what I know by blocking known domain names, couldn't Google create random subdomains and serve the code from a different subdomain every day or even every few hours, as well as change the way their JavaScript and HTML looks? Even someth…
I think Google can save ads about as effectively as AOL can save dialup. Probably their plan is to just milk advertising until the last Windows 95 computer dies too.
The 5% (of which pretty much all of HN is a part of) can probably afford to pay for the cost of creating that content. The 95%, consisting of not just hourly wagers but also salaried folks generally can't afford to. The trade off is ad supported content.
So it's very unlikely to die off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, that would be a sign that you are winning the battle. If enough websites fight ad blockers, especially big sites, and the people behind those ad blockers make clumsy mistakes, then users will reach a point where they uninstall the blocker.
Or they'll stop visiting the site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Android doesn't provide fine-grained permissions control or root access, so users can't block ads. One caveat here - Google devices are probably some of the most allowing of root access and full device ownership - easily unlocked bootloaders basically allow it to be a one button process. Some manufacturers make you put your device on a shitlist with them before they'll give you a key to unlock the bootloader and…
Not anymore. On Android devices with unlocked bootloaders, a great amount of apps won't work. Android Pay, Snapchat, Pokémon Go, etc. Google has tried to fight rooting as much as possible.
This is just a DNS filter. Why is it a big deal? DNS filters sort of work, but they're not new or magic. They trigger some ad-blocking detectors when the ads don't load.
It is good software which does simple things very well.
This is just a DNS filter. Why is it a big deal? DNS filters sort of work, but they're not new or magic. They trigger some ad-blocking detectors when the ads don't load.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - Android doesn't provide fine-grained permissions control or root access, so users can't block ads. One caveat here - Google devices are probably some of the most allowing of root access and full device ownership - easily unlocked bootloaders basically allow it to be a one button process. Some manufacturers make you put your device on a shitlist with them before they'll give you a key to unlock the bootloader and…
I've never seen a way to root my phones without some risk of turning them into bricks. How would I quickly and safely get root access to a Galaxy Note III without risking the destruction of the device?
Can you still brick it? Yes. Is it likely if you type the two commands as you're told to on the website? No.
The installation shortcut given is curl -sSL https://install.pi-hole.net | bash and one is expected to execute this as root. Yes, I know this is supposed to be a convenience thing, but I wish people wouldn't actively encourage this pattern.