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

Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

9to5google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 909 posts

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#241

Post by justsee »

Solvitieg wrote: post #148
burtonator wrote: post #132

I propose we create a new browser fork due to this issue and back it by the main ad block developers. The other issue is that Chrome on mobile doesn't support extensions. They tried to away with not having ad-block on mobile this way. No extensions means no ad-block. Let's just have a new browser based on Chrome that supports mobile + extensions and ad block and tell Google they can go pound sand.

How about Brave or Dissenter? Edit: I've just been informed this will effect all Chromium browsers. My goodness.

Chrome restricting extension APIs won't affect Brave's ad-blocking.

See: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1133878509342846977

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#242

Post by kortilla »

Klonoar wrote: post #189
ljm wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? IE was incumbent and Firefox unseated it. They had the legacy of Netscape, sure, but they didn’t throw the towel and reskin IE the same way other browsers of the time did. Besides that, at which point does the dominant search and advertising company of the internet get an antitrust case for this? People think google is trustworthy yet they do nothing to earn that trust.

This kinda erases history. IE was riddled with security flaws and stagnant beyond belief when Firefox usurped it. There was a compelling reason to use an IE alternative back then - they actually offered something IE couldn't give. Chrome doesn't have that problem.

Well it will once it disallows ad blocking

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#243

Post by notatoad »

AaronFriel wrote: post #166
OrangeManBad wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't they just patch that part of the code? I'm seriously surprised though Microsoft didn't build an adblock in IE much earlier, that would have stopped google in the tracks.

That part of the code doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's baked in at a rather low level in the browser. That's how it can block requests! In JavaScript! Google will begin by deprecating the webRequest block API (that's in progress). Then they will begin deprecating the code that supports it. Then they will begin removing and deleting the "unnecessary" code. Then, at some point in the future, they may make other brea…

as long as they're still supporting that API in enterprise installs, they're going to have a difficult time deprecating the code that drives it

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#244

Post by LamaOfRuin »

teh_klev wrote: post #205
irrational wrote: post #85

I don't get it. I've used Firefox and Chrome for years. Firefox is easily as good and capable as Chrome. The barrier to switch from Chrome to Firefox is almost non-existent. Is Google counting on the majority of people not being knowledgeable enough or motivated enough to switch browsers?

Firefox isn't quite there. How about a sane Profile manager? This is something I use heavily on Chrome. The "about:profiles" UI doesn't cut it. Also when I use Firefox on my non-work Fedora machines (and this is going from Fedora 21 to 29) it seriously chews up memory and CPU. Facebook (yeah, I know) is rendered unusable after about 30 mins. And as other post(s) have pointed out, video playback can be a bit janky. Th…

My money would be on you having an ATI graphics card and that being a good bit of the graphics jank.

2013 intel chip+integrated graphics runs like a champ and with lower memory usage than chrome (though I am blocking all the ads, which does significantly change performance everywhere).

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#245

Post by scarface74 »

AaronFriel wrote: post #206
ummonk wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is talking about installing Firefox and never looking back issuing "statements in support of Google's interests"?

[deleted]

If he is not a part of the browser team, do you think it is possible for him to be honestly mistaken?

I am a software developer for a company with less than 70 employees, I lead most infrastructure initiatives and I don’t know everything that goes on in my company and could easily misspeak about our software.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#246

Post by 0815test »

AaronFriel wrote: post #206
ummonk wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is talking about installing Firefox and never looking back issuing "statements in support of Google's interests"?

[deleted]

> Google made an intentional and specific decision

If by "Google" you actually meant "any of a zillion possible entities within Google, including any number of intrusion- and bot-detection AI's which can be incredibly trigger-prone and - like any sort of self-adaptive AI - go haywire in all sorts of entirely unsuspected and creative ways", then you would have some actual basis for that statement.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#247

Post by zorpner »

_dmurph wrote: post #164

I'm confused about the difference between what people are saying here, and what chromium is working on. Referring to the email discussion of the feature: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-exte... " It's really unfortunate how many people seem to be commenting here without understanding what the proposed changes even are. To be clear: 1. This change _IS NOT INTENDED TO GIMP AD BLOCKERS_. Rather,…

Don't yell.

1. Explain a specific use case that the new API can't handle (including a technical explanation of _why_ it can't handle that use-case)

The maximum number of rules is 30k, which will break HTTPSEverywhere (I'm assuming you don't need that explained).

Suggest constructive changes to manifest V3's API that will improve its capabilities _while still adhering to the stated goals of manifest V3_

If Google wants me to do work, they can pay me.

There was a time in the past when Google would have deserved the benefit of the doubt with changes like these. That time is long, long gone.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#248

Post by scarface74 »

tyingq wrote: post #122
panarky wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially not true. Content can still be blocked with extensions, but it will be more difficult to handle large block lists. See this comment from the author of uBlock Origin and uMatrix. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...

"Content can still be blocked with extensions" Well, without live heuristics. Chrome ad blocking is basically now limited to a dumb, limited list of URI patterns. Better than nothing, but much less capable than before.

And without privacy invasion implications. Apple introduced content blocking 4 versions ago implemented nearly the same way. No one would accuse Apple of trying to help Google make more money.

Re: Google to restrict modern ad blocking Chrome extensions to enterprise users

#250

Post by jamiequint »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #55
tapoxi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's unfair, but I can't help but think of Brave as just a scheme to push their cryptocurrency. They're removing the website's ability to monetize and replacing it with their own system. That seems gross.

I mean we would be paid for viewing ads this way instead of being paid nothing as it is now, and losing all our privacy instead. Seems like a win/win to me. Advertisers would actually pay the eyeballs that should be paid for seeing ads instead of the middleman in the attention economy. The technology in the Basic Attention Token performs all the functions instead.

> instead of being paid nothing as it is now

You get paid in the free content you consume as it is now. It's literally the reason you don't have to subscribe to every website you visit.

Post reply on HN