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

A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 614 posts

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#601

Post by vatueil »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #596
vatueil wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does blocking "on Spotify" mean? It's not as if Spotify is blocking songs within its own catalog or something: these pirate apps exist outside of Spotify, except they hijack Spotify's streaming service. They're dealt with in the same way, by getting legitimate app stores such as Apple's to take down the pirate apps: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne... Spotify has also threatened to ba…

> What does blocking "on Spotify" mean? Detecting and blocking those apps from accessing the Spotify servers. > They're dealt with in the same way, by getting legitimate app stores such as Apple's to take down the pirate apps Those are modified versions of the official app, violating its copyright. That's not the same thing as blocking a third-party app because it doesn't work the way Spotify likes. In other words, t…

It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth.

I'd rather YouTube use legal means to remove offending apps from app stores, rather than technical means that would interfere with apps outside of app stores as well. I like having youtube-dl available, thanks.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#602

Post by zaroth »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #582
zaroth wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It becomes a monopoly when the supply of browsers is controlled by a single entity and the entry of new market participants is prevented or highly restricted. Having a large market share does not make you a monopoly if you do not control the supply and restrict or prevent new market participants. Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes, and anyone who wants to c…

> Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes Only on Legacy Windows. This is not so clear cut on nuWindows or even Android. Ignoring iOS for this particular discussion, that's a separate monopoly.

> Ignoring iOS...

iOS is also not a monopoly. When you contort the definition of "monopoly" to mean a "non-open ecosystem" then IMO you seek to abuse the anti-trust regulations on the books to promote an open-ecosystem ideology.

iOS is a closed ecosystem in a highly competitive marketplace. Customers -- when given the choice -- have chosen to opt-in to that closed ecosystem billions of times over the last decade.

There are absolutely pros and cons to a closed ecosystem. Which is why it's so great that we have so many options for computing devices on the market occupying various spaces on that closed-open spectrum to choose from!

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#603

Post by JetSpiegel »

zaroth wrote: post #602
JetSpiegel wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes Only on Legacy Windows. This is not so clear cut on nuWindows or even Android. Ignoring iOS for this particular discussion, that's a separate monopoly.

> Ignoring iOS... iOS is also not a monopoly . When you contort the definition of "monopoly" to mean a "non-open ecosystem" then IMO you seek to abuse the anti-trust regulations on the books to promote an open-ecosystem ideology. iOS is a closed ecosystem in a highly competitive marketplace. Customers -- when given the choice -- have chosen to opt-in to that closed ecosystem billions of times over the last decade. Th…

> iOS is a closed ecosystem in a highly competitive marketplace.

And yet, Apple's profits grow, including per-unit. Not much competition there.

Firefox compiled for iOS cannot be distributed on the store, and since there is no way to sideload apps, Apple has a literal monopoly on Browsers. Where's the choice there?

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#604

Post by JetSpiegel »

aembleton wrote: post #599
JetSpiegel wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since a browser is a piece of software you can install with a couple clicks in a couple minutes Only on Legacy Windows. This is not so clear cut on nuWindows or even Android. Ignoring iOS for this particular discussion, that's a separate monopoly.

Why not on Android? You can just install Firefox: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...

On the store controlled by Firefox's main competitor for browsers.

It's a precarious situation, but so far Google hasn't asserted their power on that front.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#606

Post by Gibbon1 »

nullc wrote: post #515
a-nikolaev wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is famous for this type of attrition damage tactic. Read this: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 It goes like this: Google bans or disables something, then they pretend they made a mistake, but still delay fixing it for days or weeks while giving amateurish explanations for these delays. In the end what this tactic achieves, is hampering a software Google disapproves (or competes against).…

This sort of evil behavior doesn't require intent or actual malice to form. All it requires is that panic efforts to fix things be primarily allocated to problems that hurt google and not primarily allocated to things that hurt google's opponents. Or for infrastructure that has a history of hurting google to get disabled while infrastructure that has a history of hurting others gets ignored in favor of spending more…

This is why we used to have anti-trust law.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#607

Post by Dylan16807 »

vatueil wrote: post #601
Dylan16807 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does blocking "on Spotify" mean? Detecting and blocking those apps from accessing the Spotify servers. > They're dealt with in the same way, by getting legitimate app stores such as Apple's to take down the pirate apps Those are modified versions of the official app, violating its copyright. That's not the same thing as blocking a third-party app because it doesn't work the way Spotify likes. In other words, t…

It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth. I'd rather YouTube use legal means to remove offending apps from app stores, rather than technical means that would interfere with apps outside of ap…

> It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth.

I think you're missing what the argument is.

Youtube blocking something that violates Youtube TOS: completely fine

One part of a massive conglomerate company blocking something because it violates the TOS of an unrelated part: anti-competitive

> I'd rather YouTube use legal means to remove offending apps from app stores, rather than technical means that would interfere with apps outside of app stores as well. I like having youtube-dl available, thanks.

Youtube isn't using legal means, in general. They get apps taken down that don't do anything illegal. So the distinction does matter.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#608

Post by Gibbon1 »

HenryBemis wrote: post #529
blowski wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully in this case, they will switch to Firefox.

As a precaution to such tactics like, I have (long time ago) switched for Firefox Portable, which updates properly, and also backup up its folder and keep a backup of all add-ons .xpi files, (winrar for Windows has a nifty naming mechanism that you can add YYYY-MM-DD HH-MM-SS on the backup name), so if there is an update I don't like, or if after an update I am left with half my add-ons being disabled due to incompat…

Exactly from here on out if there is a choice you dismiss the google product out of hand.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#609

Post by Gibbon1 »

vbezhenar wrote: post #445
lazyguy2 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being stonewalled by bureaucracy with no explanation given is nothing new.

You can shout at bureaucrats. You have some basic rights. You can demand escalation of your issue. You can't do much when your Google account is banned.

A friend of mine works as a lawyer dealing with PUC's. Trope of faceless bureaucrats pisses him off because he see it from the other side. Because they'll actually listen to some 80 year old lady's complaint at a meeting[1] and then maybe try to figure out what they can do to not piss her off.

[1] The meetings that people who rant about faceless bureaucrats never show up at.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#610

Post by roar-of-time »

saagarjha wrote: post #498
SomeOtherThrow wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari has only weak protections, basically url-level blocking equivalent to Pihole. Last I checked ublock origin does allow blocking elements by DOM selector. One day ads will start being plexed with content over websockets and the DOM-level protections will be all we have. Firefox is really the only alternative here.

> Safari has only weak protections, basically url-level blocking equivalent to Pihole. Last I checked ublock origin does allow blocking elements by DOM selector. No, Safari content blockers can target selectors as well.

Yup, the only problem is the limit on the number of filters, which many people think is way too small.
Post reply on HN