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

Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 256 posts

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#151

Post by metildaa »

kibwen wrote: post #148
AsyncAwait wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ironically Firefox killed their extension API to be compatible with Chrome's extensions. This is misleading. They deprecated the old API primarily to be able to do multi-process and get rid of XUL.

As well as to expose a stable extension API (no more XUL extensions breaking randomly on every browser update) and to enforce any sort of security boundary/permissions system.

Note that this was done after two prior failed attempts to rewrite the CSS engine for multithread in C++: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/02/rewriting-a-browser-compon...

Its sad to lose DownThemAll and the plethora of othwr XUL extensions, but having performant multicore support is critical given the shift to having many cores (as single thread performance improvements become uncommon).

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#152

Post by SquareWheel »

gorhill wrote: post #119
user17843 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are probably right, although a low number of rules will also affect them as their acceptable ads program is based on the fact that they block everything else. I still wonder if they can continue to offer that program with 30,000 rules only. My idea that they target ABP came from their arbitrary 30,000 rules limit. As I have written elsewhere I consider ABP and AdBlock as "infiltrated" by Google, so they definitel…

The Safari version supports "Acceptable Ads". I counted ~17,000 rules[1] which includes exception rules. Also, keep in mind cosmetic exception filters are not implemented through the declarativeNetRequest API. (Edited for accuracy regarding rule count) * * * [1] https://gitlab.com/eyeo/adblockplus/adblockplussafarimacos/t...

It's been my assumption that with a little bit of scripting, EasyList could be pruned to land within the 30K without too much trouble. As you have more experience in this fields though, do you have any thoughts on how viable this approach would be, and if the 30K limit will be a problem in the end?

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#153

Post by dvdgsng »

EugeneOZ wrote: post #130

Tried Opera on Mac OS - half of toggles on the Settings page is not rendered - "Pref not found for element SETTINGS-TOGGLE-BUTTON in SETTINGS-APPEARANCE-PAG". It was so epic trash - removed instantly. They obviously don't test it on Mac OS. Tried Vivaldi - render sites with errors (some images missing). 0 plugins installed. Not acceptable, removed. Brave - I really hate person who run this project and how he is tryin…

> Tried Vivaldi - render sites with errors (some images missing). 0 plugins installed. Not acceptable, removed.

Not sure what version of Vivaldi you used when that happened, but using Vivaldi every day on multiple workstations with different OS's without any issues I can only urge you to give it another try.

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#154

Post by TylerE »

negamax wrote: post #146

Damn Google! This is so short sighted. People/everyone just installed Chrome on whatever systems they could find and that's how Chrome become so prevalent. Not because it was a superior product, not because of technology but because everyone was anti IE. Google is painting Chrome into similar corner. In a way, this is a good indicator of decline of Google. Revenue not through innovation but by coercion

I think that's rather revisionist. At a point in time Chrome was way better than not just IE, but way better than Firefox. The performance was leaps and bounds ahead.

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#155

Post by tempguy9999 »

pgeorgi wrote: post #111
tempguy9999 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose an extension is easier but as browsers can be told to go through proxies, an extension isn't necessary for adblocking. A 2nd process on the machine, a change to the browser (set localhost and a port) and you're done. Someone did something similar and called it Dan's Guardian IIRC, but that's all it was. That's how I run mine, a local (and very ancient) version of squid blocks everything. It won't be as flex…

That doesn't work as well for https connections where you can only block on domain name, for which any DNS/VPN-based blocking works just as well.

I don't think so, AIUI. The page is decrypted by squid to serve it, so security is irrelevant.

Also it can match on regular expressions " rel="nofollow">http://www.squidguard.org/Doc/expressionlist.html>

If I'm wrong about the first point, please clarify. Web/HTTP is really not my area so maybe squid receives and passes stuff through entirely as a blob, if https is used.

Edit. What dgoldstein0 wrote suggests I do misunderstand.

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#156

Post by giancarlostoro »

negamax wrote: post #146

Damn Google! This is so short sighted. People/everyone just installed Chrome on whatever systems they could find and that's how Chrome become so prevalent. Not because it was a superior product, not because of technology but because everyone was anti IE. Google is painting Chrome into similar corner. In a way, this is a good indicator of decline of Google. Revenue not through innovation but by coercion

There was always Firefox. When Chrome first came out I tried it. It didnt have plugins therefore no AdBlocker so I went back to Firefox cause pop ups are super annoying. Then when it did have addons it had a crappy adblocker that wasnt effective at all. I never went back to Chrome except for as a secondary browser. Firefox has been my main driving browser since the mid 2000s.

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#157

Post by kibwen »

millisecond wrote: post #120
rndgermandude wrote: post #42

The problem at this point isn't whether chrome will disable it... It can be added back, probably fairly easily as google intents to keep it around for "enterprise" anyway, so it's probably just gonna end up changing/removing one if-statement. If not, then the code already exists and has to be merged back in. The problem is distribution of the actual extensions, as Vivaldi kinda pointed out, as the other browsers most…

All of the other browsers shouldn’t worry about store nonsense, just ship u-block by default and enabled. Fight fire with fire.

The reason that no browser does this is because that's the easiest way to go from "some sites are broken in this browser because no webdevs care to test with it" to "many sites are broken in this browser because webdevs deliberately go out of their way to break it". It's the nuclear option that a browser like Firefox would only go for (in the climate of the current web) if things got truly desperate for them. It's why, for example, Firefox didn't start blocking third-party cookies until Safari did it first: it gave them political cover to do so (and Safari can do whatever it wants because it's the only game in town on iOS).

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#158

Post by EugeneOZ »

pedrocx486 wrote: post #143
EugeneOZ wrote: post #130

Tried Opera on Mac OS - half of toggles on the Settings page is not rendered - "Pref not found for element SETTINGS-TOGGLE-BUTTON in SETTINGS-APPEARANCE-PAG". It was so epic trash - removed instantly. They obviously don't test it on Mac OS. Tried Vivaldi - render sites with errors (some images missing). 0 plugins installed. Not acceptable, removed. Brave - I really hate person who run this project and how he is tryin…

Edge Chromium maybe? I've been using it and have no complaints...

Yeah, testing it right now :) Thanks for the reminder - it's easy to forget MS has a browser for Mac :)

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#159

Post by dogecoinbase »

muro wrote: post #128
amelius wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking more of: "Extra ads for Chrome users: ... Want less ads? Use ..." Bonus for putting the extra ads in a pop-over div.

That makes no sense whatsoever for a business owner.

Not all websites are businesses.

Re: Opera, Brave, Vivaldi to ignore Chrome's anti-ad-blocker changes

#160

Post by bongobongo »

partiallypro wrote: post #149

I don't see how Chrome's new anti-ad blocking isn't seen as anti-competitive, considering Google basically runs the ad business on non-Google sites, etc. Sure, Facebook and Amazon also serve up ads...but Google is by far the company that is hurt the most by ad blocking. Then at the same time Chrome is essentially blocking "intrusive" ads by default...and by intrusive they basically mean non-Google ads that have the s…

It is absolutely anti-competitive garbage, and you should be prepared to see more and more of it (and increasingly anti-consumer iterations if it) until people wake up and start demanding that their political leaders do something about it.

“Companies will regulate themselves” is a cute libertarian bedtime story.

Post reply on HN