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

821–830 of 909 posts

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

#821

Post by jonesnc »

wlll wrote: post #807
cptskippy wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it does spell checking of form fields. So does FireFox, other than Form Fields where else would one need/use spellcheck? I wonder what's been done to yours so that it doesn't.

Firefox dsoe nto spel chcek fomr feilds. This comment didn't get any spell checking whatsoever. Last time I investigated this the suggestion was to install a plugin, a hoop I think is unreasonable to make people jump through. I'm using a vanilla Firefox install on a Mac. I've not fiddled with it in any way. update It seems there is a preference: https://dl.sendcat.com/8BEOaD0qwKgHhIizbRLif8G572x4RgKGGLvcp... It was s…

https://i.imgur.com/SZP9n3b.png

That's what I see in Firefox on Mac.

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

#823

Post by jdeibele »

Myrmornis wrote: post #779
andrewaylett wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does depend on exactly why you want profiles -- for my use cases, Multi-Account Containers (and Temporary Containers) do a much better job of helping me achieve what I want to do than either browser's implementation of profiles.

I maintain that it is a widely-propagated misconception that Firefox containers can be used to replace Chrome profiles. Here are my notes from when I investigated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15688651 I went deeply into trying to use containers as a profile replacement, replacing Chrome with the new Firefox beta for one month, and I can report that it is not the right direction to go in: - New tabs do not in…

You're right about the limits of containers. When I'm browsing normally, the default is not to be logged into Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Things like my "Gmail this" bookmark fail because I set up Gmail in its own container.

However, I find it very useful to have specific containers for Facebook, banking, other social networks, most of my gmail accounts, etc. So I can be doing stuff for my son's soccer club's email without it affecting my own gmail.

I think of containers as a user tool. It seems like profiles are more of a developer tool.

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

#824

Post by wlll »

jonesnc wrote: post #821
wlll wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox dsoe nto spel chcek fomr feilds. This comment didn't get any spell checking whatsoever. Last time I investigated this the suggestion was to install a plugin, a hoop I think is unreasonable to make people jump through. I'm using a vanilla Firefox install on a Mac. I've not fiddled with it in any way. update It seems there is a preference: https://dl.sendcat.com/8BEOaD0qwKgHhIizbRLif8G572x4RgKGGLvcp... It was s…

https://i.imgur.com/SZP9n3b.png That's what I see in Firefox on Mac.

US user? Apparently you have to install an add-on to get non en-US spell checking.

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

#825

Post by soverance »

xur17 wrote: post #288
notatoad wrote: post #260

Not only is this enough to get me switching back to firefox, it's enough that my next laptop purchase won't be another chromebook the internet without an adblocker is simply not usable for me.

Agreed. This is making me reconsider all of the Google services and products I use.

Also agreed. I've already long since pulled almost everything I use away from Google, with the exception of my cell phone (I'm a Fi subscriber).

Now I'm beginning to look into alternative cell phone plans, simply because Google's insistence on advertising doesn't sit well with me.

I currently work at an advertising agency (doing IT stuff), and I'm in the process of job hunting for this exact reason. I can't justify spending my time helping people who are insistent on finding new, increasingly intrusive ways to advertise.

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

#826

Post by troxwalt »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #727

I say this all the time when this kind of thing comes up. Please use Firefox! Even if it's worse. Even if its slower[1]. Even if it doesn't have that one feature or bug fix that you personally consider really important. Just use Firefox anyway. Find a workaround. Suffer whatever it is you dislike about Firefox because in the end if we don't act as individuals against the chrome monopoly then google are going to own t…

Firefox just runs so slowly compared to Chrome on my 2015 MBP. I have zero extensions and it's a default install. Such a bummer too. ( I use Firefox on my desktop PC though. )

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

#827

Post by tomxor »

user17843 wrote: post #53
phiresky wrote: post #39

From the author of uBlock on this: What we see are the public statements, for public consumption, they are designed to "sell" the changes to the wider public. What we do not see is what is being said in private meetings by officers who get to decide how to optimize the business. So we have to judge not by what is said for public consumption purpose, but by what in effect is being done, or what they plan to do. This i…

Indeed, almost the entire ad-blocking market is controlled by the company behind Adblock Plus (eyeo GmbH), who has contracts with Google. It appears they also own AdBlock, and uBlock (not confused with uBO), so during the last years they basically tried to capture the entire market. The fact that Eyeo has >150 employees tells us something about the amount of money to be made from ad blocking. Although they have only…

> Someone at Google in the higher ups probably realized at one point that giving the user so much freedom and control could theoretically backfire enourmously.

If that is the case, it seems very short sighted.

While this change is obviously not in the interest of any user, there are multiple ways around it.. the alternative solutions are not so easy right now, but they will become more user friendly as they rise to the surface as the new way to block ads. The affect on Google's revenue will be short term (if any), but I suspect the affect on Google's public image will be significant and lasting. It doesn't seem worth the risk to Google for such a short term gain.

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

#828

Post by fesoliveira »

Will these changes affect the pure Chromium? I really don't want to move to Firefox, all my settings, auto-fills and stuff is in Chrome, and Chromium seems like a better alternative if it still supports ad-blocking. I know that Firefox has improved a lot over the years, but I still have a few too many issues whenever I try using it, whereas Chrome and Chromium "just works".

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

#829

Post by bhauer »

dmix wrote: post #500
phiresky wrote: post #39

From the author of uBlock on this: What we see are the public statements, for public consumption, they are designed to "sell" the changes to the wider public. What we do not see is what is being said in private meetings by officers who get to decide how to optimize the business. So we have to judge not by what is said for public consumption purpose, but by what in effect is being done, or what they plan to do. This i…

Welcome to the point when even free market people will no longer defend your monopoly, Google. The number of egregious examples of their centralization backfiring against the freedoms within the day-to-day life of internet users keeps growing bigger at a seemingly exponential rate. The barrier for competition may be high but history is littered with examples of giants withering under their own decision making. Nor wi…

I am as free market as they come.

I don't consider Google a monopoly. I figure many "free market people" define a monopoly pretty strictly. They're not forcing me to use their browser, search engine, maps, email, or many other services.

However, they do have a disturbingly high level of market dominance. So seeing as I am a part of the free market (after all, the "economy is us"), I have opted to minimize my use of Google products and services and encourage others to do the same. This wasn't the tipping point for me; I've been advocating alternatives for quite some time.

I don't want Google punished with anti-trust laws if that can be avoided. I'd much rather see users apply corrective pressure. Of course, that assumes users appreciate the importance of their privacy, which makes this a lengthy game of messaging and persuasion.

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

#830

Post by propertymagnate »

Klonoar wrote: post #539
wwweston wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla can (and does) offer putting the privacy concerns and an open web first. Google has worked very hard over the years to make itself into an organization with deeply baked-in incentives to do the opposite. It'd take a decade of sustained effort working counter to powerful incentives to fix that. This is distinct from making a capable well-performing browser, which Google has done. So has Mozilla.

Yeah, sure, privacy is good. It's not a product-making sale point for the vast majority of people.

Ad blocking is at least a concrete point that can be clearly explained, and will continue to drive traffic to mozilla.

It's not a completely ethereal concept like privacy, democratic freedom, etc.

Post reply on HN