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

Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 394 posts

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#261

Post by jen20 »

happybuy wrote: post #178
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember some people saying Safari's extension changes and specific content blocker API would be a good thing because ad blockers would use less resources. The change happened, uBlock Origin broke for Safari and here we are several years later and the Safari ad blocker ecosystem is an absolute joke and most of it barely works or demands subscription fees (and the ones that do are certainly not worth paying for beca…

That’s not true re the Safari ad blocker ecosystem. We develop a Safari ad blocker [1] that works on iOS and macOS which provides performant and private ad blocking. Unlike previous ad blockers using other extension mechanisms, it also can’t see which web pages you visit. We recently released best in class YouTube ad blocking features too. The mechanisms for doing this is different, but the ad blocking results are as…

I use Safari for everything both in macOS and iOS, and would be tempted to try your product, but can’t find the price, making it a non-starter.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#262

Post by krono »

Danieru wrote: post #202
krono wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave is just crypto adware, they even went so far as to automatically append crypto exchange referral codes to urls [0] Funded by Palantir Technologies by the way [1] Their ad rewards system analyses and modifies the original webcontent, replacing existing ads with their own (and who knows what other code they inject) [2] Then there's their hidden tracker URL whitelist [3] No thanks. [0] https://twitter.com/cryptona…

Don't enable ads if you do not want them. Personally I think avoiding ads is important so I don't enable them. Thus Brave acts like what Firefox should be had its organization not become so broken.

The custom ads for crypto rewards (which they've not been paying out) is probably the least concerning thing in that list.

The URL modification was silently enabled by default, and the tracker whitelist and marketing headers are not configurable at all.

Mozilla isn't what it used to be, but at least they're not acting like the Russian mob.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#263

Post by zwaps »

happybuy wrote: post #178
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember some people saying Safari's extension changes and specific content blocker API would be a good thing because ad blockers would use less resources. The change happened, uBlock Origin broke for Safari and here we are several years later and the Safari ad blocker ecosystem is an absolute joke and most of it barely works or demands subscription fees (and the ones that do are certainly not worth paying for beca…

That’s not true re the Safari ad blocker ecosystem. We develop a Safari ad blocker [1] that works on iOS and macOS which provides performant and private ad blocking. Unlike previous ad blockers using other extension mechanisms, it also can’t see which web pages you visit. We recently released best in class YouTube ad blocking features too. The mechanisms for doing this is different, but the ad blocking results are as…

did you ever notice how the only people who ever say anything positive about Safari's adblock ecosystem are those who literally sell adblocker software? It is like clockwork.

Despite the fact that most of your posts on HN are ads for magiclasso, the fact remains that even most basic features (like whitelisting or blocking cookie banners) require payment.

Furthermore, you do not even come close to uBlock origin. Of course, we both know this, because it simply is not possible. Apple does not allow it. And yet, you continue to state the opposite even though it simply is not true.

On other platforms, using *entirely free* addons like uBlock, you can zap away annoying elements/bars/overlays... or enable some requests while blocking others selectively. You can block videos on some news websites, but allow javascript galleries, and do the opposite on a video site. You can block that overlay disabling right clicks or hijacking the scroll bar. Once you know that it is possible, you do this every day.

None of that is possible with your product, magiclasso.co, no matter how much money I pay you or how many ads you write on hackernews.

There's a fine line when shilling your own product here. One should be humble.

If you write: Yes, compared to other platforms, the adblock ecosystem in Safari is absolutely dismal. However, we have this product where we are doing our best... Okay...

What you write there? ugh sorry, but no.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#264

Post by marcosdumay »

hutzlibu wrote: post #45
erklik wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla annoys me. Truly it does. However, it's the organisation. Firefox as a browser, especially dev tools, seems better in every day use than Chrome does. I am really not sure why they keep losing users. I do remember being massive performance issues in the past, but that's really not the case today (at least in my experience)

"Firefox as a browser, especially dev tools, seems better in every day use than Chrome does. " Cannot confirm at all. I do not know any feature in ff dev tools I am missing in chrome, but the other way around lots of it. Mainly: editing and saving directly in the debugger! Could also be my ignorance, but I regulary do debugging in FF and it works, but way less efficient. Meaning I browse with FF, but work with chrome…

> Mainly: editing and saving directly in the debugger!

Hum... Firefox does that. I know because every time I mistakenly start saving I ask what is the point of it. But well, looks like it's useful for somebody.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#265

Post by quesera »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #235
quesera wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I have 3668 tabs open in Firefox right now. Looks like it's using about 1.6GB of RAM. (Notes: most of those thousands of tabs are unloaded, I block JavaScript rather aggressively, and yes I do recognize the absurdity but I confess my sins here to illustrate my point!) I have no experience migrating from Chrome to Firefox, but FF can certainly handle lots of tabs. Vertical tab layouts are very helpful for naviga…

Your use case is covered by Firefox, its called Bookmarks.

If only it were so. Unfortunately, bookmarks serve a very different use case. I have 55821 of them.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#266

Post by marcosdumay »

aembleton wrote: post #148
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of fighting browser engines monoculture, I'd recommend you NOT using Brave, even for all the goodies and niceties in the world.

What's wrong with a browser engine monoculture? It'd make development simpler as you could just test against that one engine.

You mean what's wrong with Google controlling the web standards?

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#267

Post by zwaps »

azalemeth wrote: post #213
happybuy wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not true re the Safari ad blocker ecosystem. We develop a Safari ad blocker [1] that works on iOS and macOS which provides performant and private ad blocking. Unlike previous ad blockers using other extension mechanisms, it also can’t see which web pages you visit. We recently released best in class YouTube ad blocking features too. The mechanisms for doing this is different, but the ad blocking results are as…

For me, once Apple made that decision, I started migrating away from Safari, and I haven't tried your product. I note that it does have a pro subscription option -- which I'm not opposed to -- but I do also note that this seems to be much more common than the "donationware" licensing model of most other browser extensions. Out of curiosity, can Magic Lassoo present a detailed list of domain connection attempts by cat…

No matter what all these adblocker advertisements tell you here on HN: Safari only allows these extensions to have a single blocklist and then your choice is whether to enable or disable the adblocker extension, with all its fixed and non-dynamic rules, on the website in question. From that perspective, Safari adblockers are virtually identical, simply because they are all using the same interface and (I would suspect) resell blocklists you get to use for free elsewhere.

It's people selling you a subscription product that is vastly inferior to any free extension on Firefox (not on iOS obv) and the same discussion has been had many times before.

I mean, I don't want to be a negative nancy here, but it does get annoying with these ads that seemingly have lost all perspective of how bad adblocking on Safari truly is.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#268

Post by 5560675260 »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #38
erklik wrote: post #2

It's time for mass-migration to Firefox. Only losing users is going to tell Google that this is a horrible solution to enforce.

What... Is the appeal of brave ? I hear it has crypto and shit but why not install Firefox with ubo and be done with it? I feel the "cool" factor of brave is silly as they are just fueling chromium. Why don't these chromium forks base on Firefox instead and do some leg work with the benefit of helping the internet as a whole ? I hear someone said on hn a long time ago, building on ff is a pita. Well guess what, Firef…

There are several things.

1) There is an integrated ad blocker. It's very convenient because I don't have to worry about adblocking plugin is bought out and is compromised, I don't have to figure out if my uBlock is supposed to be "origin" or not, or if I should go for adGuard or something else. There is no risk of adblocking breaking because of the changes in plugin API.

2) Integrated optional ad network that by default distributes money based on your web usage, but gives you control over spending your ad income. This is the coolest thing about Brave and I really wish it would succeed, but, unfortunately, it's very unlikely without very wide adoption and I just don't see that happening

3) Not developed by Mozilla. That's nice since I can't ethically support them.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#269

Post by osmarks »

commoner wrote: post #126
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d prefer Firefox, but some functionality works inarguably better in chrome. One example is YouTube, which slams my processor due to the lack of hardware decoding.

The h264ify add-on will let your computer load YouTube videos more efficiently on Firefox, if it supports hardware acceleration for H.264 but not VP8/VP9. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/h264ify/

The issue is that Firefox doesn't actually support hardware video decoding on Linux without various hackery.

Re: Google sets burial date for legacy Chrome Extensions, fears for ad-blockers grow

#270

Post by 5560675260 »

krono wrote: post #193
melbourne_mat wrote: post #154

Brave has ad blocking built in - you don't need extensions.

Brave is just crypto adware, they even went so far as to automatically append crypto exchange referral codes to urls [0] Funded by Palantir Technologies by the way [1] Their ad rewards system analyses and modifies the original webcontent, replacing existing ads with their own (and who knows what other code they inject) [2] Then there's their hidden tracker URL whitelist [3] No thanks. [0] https://twitter.com/cryptona…

> replacing existing ads with their own (and who knows what other code they inject)

This is completely wrong. Brave ads are shown in OS notifications.

Post reply on HN