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

Post by taneq » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 11:36 AM UTC

nxpnsv wrote: post #224

ben_jones wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its gotten to the point where power users go around to all their non-power-user friends and install ad blockers for them, at least I do in our office. The reason this is so successful is because it takes 5 seconds to go the the chrome store and add ublock origin. Convincing my non-power-user friends to move to firefox would be significantly harder. Google's goal is to remove the severity (and effectively the…

I may be poorly informed, but why is firefox difficult? I switched a year ago and haven’t really noticed anything different...

Post by taneq » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 11:58 AM UTC

el_programmador wrote: post #59

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…

My gut feeling is that Google won't pull this stunt with chrome, this is some kind of scare mongering or a PR tactic, I dunno. It doesn't make a logical sense because if they are banning the ad-blockers, it means they accept that chrome is largely used by power users who can install these blockers (otherwise, what's the need?). But they should realize that a power user who installs an addon can just as easily move to…

Post by SquareWheel » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 2:06 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #220

SquareWheel wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Doesn't any finite length list that is only able to be updated when the addon is updated mean ad networks can use a random string with more combinations than the size of list to defeat all ad blocking?

Post by gorhill » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

techntoke wrote: post #181

bongobongo wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google never said they were blocking ad-blockers. It was the hyperbole Firefox crowd who used some post by Raymond Hill from the creator of uBlock Origin as a reason to start another "Switch to Firefox" campaign. However, Hill admitted that adblockers aren't going away and it is just a proposed change in the WebRequest API to make things more akin to Safari to help adblockers operate in a standard in speedy way. Mozi…

Post by slenk » Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC

TheSeeker11 wrote: post #218

AdGuard will not be affected by these changes - https://adguard.com/en/blog/chrome-api-comment.html