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

uBlock Origin Lite: Description

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 155 posts

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#71

Post by SquareWheel »

skyfalldev wrote: post #40
e40 wrote: post #38

What I don't get from this is how uBOL (MV3) compares to uBO (MV2). Anyone?

Since MV3 adds quite a lot of limits on what uBO can do, you have to grant permission for each site to have cosmetic filtering.

That limitation has nothing to do with MV3. Adguard does not suffer from this problem. Making it opt-in is a specific design consideration that gorhill took with this version of uBlock to reduce its permission scope.

I wish people were not so quick to share misinformation like this.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#72

Post by staticassertion »

BrianGragg wrote: post #42
staticassertion wrote: post #37

I guess the biggest issue I have with V3 is I don't really "get it". The idea was initially that extensions have too many privileges and that malware can leverage those privileges for harm. I'd love data here! This is such a good area to share information on, as someone in security I'd really value that. I'd like to see case studies on malware, or even broad things like "malware uses these permissions X% of the time"…

Maybe I'm out of touch but I think the 'malware' they are worried about are ad blockers.

I don't think so. That gets repeated a lot but I think people are just unaware of the fact that Google ads are particularly uninvasive and easy to block. If ad blockers are less capable that will only help Google's competitors, not Google. Another comment the other day confirmed that Google's ads continue to be blockable with V3.

This could change - AdSense ads could start implementing bypasses. I think that's unlikely because Google would likely end up with a few lawsuits, questions about browser monopolies, and a congressional hearing. Certainly the EU would be on their asses. One day that may change, but I don't see this move as being part of any specific plans to improve AdSense revenue.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#73

Post by jchw »

runjake wrote: post #69
baal80spam wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bet he should! To me, there are 3 projects I'd throw my money to: - uBlock Origin - ytdl - The Internet Web Archive

But, do you donate? https://archive.org/donate?origin=wbwww-TopNavDonateButton (Couldn't find links for uBo and ytdl. I've asked gorhill where to donate in the past and they've refused donations.)

Note that you cannot manage your recurring IA donation for any reason without manually contacting them. For this reason I have not moved my IA donation to my newer credit card nor increased my donation since it was set up. I do not know if this is a dark pattern or just an oddly limited system, but the only officially recommended solution is to use PayPal. So I'd recommend that. https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-update-or-change-my-r...

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#74

Post by ssth »

staticassertion wrote: post #72
BrianGragg wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm out of touch but I think the 'malware' they are worried about are ad blockers.

I don't think so. That gets repeated a lot but I think people are just unaware of the fact that Google ads are particularly uninvasive and easy to block. If ad blockers are less capable that will only help Google's competitors, not Google. Another comment the other day confirmed that Google's ads continue to be blockable with V3. This could change - AdSense ads could start implementing bypasses. I think that's unlike…

> That gets repeated a lot but I think people are just unaware of the fact that Google ads are particularly uninvasive and easy to block.

Not true in my experience, i have encountered adsensw that pretty invasive to my 2012 laptop's cpu core i3 gen3 (i know its pretty old), i dont think any ads should be that way.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#76

Post by gnicholas »

mrieck wrote: post #26

How is everyone else's MV3 upgrade going? I have 3 extensions and each one has multiple feature-breaking changes that will take hundreds of hours to implement less than ideal work arounds. I guess I'll focus on SnipCSS ( https://www.snipcss.com ) because that's the only one I have paying customers. For people who do manage the upgrade, at least we can look forward to less competition in the Chrome Web Store?

Partly cloud with a chance of thunder. I have 2 extensions and we've gotten one in sight of the finish line (after months of work), and the other appears to be dependent upon some as-yet unfixed third-party code.

We are really hoping Google doesn't force this through on their originally-announced timeline. This is the third massive Google-induced change that we've stomached in the last couple years. We spend more time keeping our head above water than we do adding new features...

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#77

Post by comfypotato »

longtimelistnr wrote: post #70
SteeCee wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've ever seen how topics are treated in a Wikipedia discussion thread you'd feel like the whole website has zero credibility. There's a reason academics don't let you use it.

The reason is that it is not a direct source of course because the authors cannot be validated. Never met a college professor that said don’t use Wikipedia (if anything it was encouraged) as long as you’re pulling from the citations. I had plenty of high school teachers talk about how awful it is though and I think it was because they just didn’t understand it

I'll take this a step further to say that my graduate algorithms professor assigned Wikipedia articles as reading. The parent blanket statements are just that: overgeneralizations.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#78

Post by webmobdev »

novok wrote: post #51
syntaxing wrote: post #18

If this works, is there any reason this won’t work as a content blocker for safari?

It just won't work that well. Recently in the past few months I've been noticing more and more ads with safari style content blockers, while ublock style continue to work fine. I fear this style of 'adblock' will have similar issues.

Switch to Orion browser - https://browser.kagi.com/ - it's a Safari / webkit clone with built-in uBlock Origin.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#79

Post by tyingq »

staticassertion wrote: post #37

I guess the biggest issue I have with V3 is I don't really "get it". The idea was initially that extensions have too many privileges and that malware can leverage those privileges for harm. I'd love data here! This is such a good area to share information on, as someone in security I'd really value that. I'd like to see case studies on malware, or even broad things like "malware uses these permissions X% of the time"…

The reason you don't get it is that taking away the functional part of onBeforeRequest() doesn't really help with privacy. Because extensions can, for example, still inject arbitrary javascript if those permissions are in the manifest.

What it really does is ensure that adblockers can't do heuristics, and instead have to rely solely on semi-static lists of urls. That's a nice outcome if you're a company that makes most of their money from ads.

There's not really a nice way to say that aloud though, so trying to make it sound it's a way of ensuring extensions honor privacy and security sounds better.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#80

Post by staticassertion »

ssth wrote: post #74
staticassertion wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. That gets repeated a lot but I think people are just unaware of the fact that Google ads are particularly uninvasive and easy to block. If ad blockers are less capable that will only help Google's competitors, not Google. Another comment the other day confirmed that Google's ads continue to be blockable with V3. This could change - AdSense ads could start implementing bypasses. I think that's unlike…

> That gets repeated a lot but I think people are just unaware of the fact that Google ads are particularly uninvasive and easy to block. Not true in my experience, i have encountered adsensw that pretty invasive to my 2012 laptop's cpu core i3 gen3 (i know its pretty old), i dont think any ads should be that way.

I don't know what you're trying to say - the ads you're running into are explicitly working to bypass your adblocking?
Post reply on HN