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

121–130 of 155 posts

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#121

Post by jchw »

tibbon wrote: post #94
jchw wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've worked on several large recurring payments platforms. It isn't rocket science, but let me tell you it is generally a pain in the ass to to manage recurring payments - in most of the systems I've worked in its easiest to just cancel and start a new one. The schemas are generally awful and make a lot of assumptions in the worst of ways. I wouldn't be shocked if the IA just finds it easier to manage manually than p…

I've worked on several platforms with recurring billing, including a marketplace prior to Stripe Connect existing, so I get that it can be pretty challenging.

That said:

- IA doesn't even offer cancelling. That's... not a particularly technically challenging feature. I have a strong feeling that they in fact have a cancel button somewhere in their backend anyways.

- While some of this can be annoying, it's kinda table stakes these days. If you can't handle basic subscription functionality, god help you for things like 3-D Secure.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#122

Post by kcb »

staticassertion wrote: post #82
tyingq wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

Yeah, I said this in another comment, I don't really believe that to be the case. I'm not saying that a conflict of interest doesn't exist, I just don't believe that this move is part of an overall plan to have Google start bypassing adblockers.

Why doesn't Chrome on Android support addons?

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#123

Post by unethical_ban »

Why does MV3 matter?

Fuck Chrome, for a moment. It sounds, to a layman, like an arbitrarily established API for web engines to expose to extension developers.

In other words, it isn't HTML5 or HTTP4. Each browser chooses whether to use it.

If it is such shit, why is Firefox doing it?

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#124

Post by kcb »

chlorion wrote: post #112
yyyk2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why even pretend like MV3 isn't meant to cripple adblockers so Google can extract more revenue from their advertisement business?

Do we have any evidence to support these claims? If Google actually wanted to cripple adblockers, why wouldn't just ban them outright and remove addons used for adblocking purposes from the Chrome extension store, or completely remove APIs that allow for content blocking? Why would they develop a new extension API that still allows you to block ads at all? Why isn't it possible that the new APIs might have actual ben…

> If Google actually wanted to cripple adblockers, why wouldn't just ban them outright and remove addons used for adblocking purposes from the Chrome extension store, or completely remove APIs that allow for content blocking? Why would they develop a new extension API that still allows you to block ads at all?

They already did all this on the most popular version of Chrome. It seems very reasonable to assume their desired state is to match that version across all platforms.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#125

Post by tommy92 »

chlorion wrote: post #112
yyyk2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why even pretend like MV3 isn't meant to cripple adblockers so Google can extract more revenue from their advertisement business?

Do we have any evidence to support these claims? If Google actually wanted to cripple adblockers, why wouldn't just ban them outright and remove addons used for adblocking purposes from the Chrome extension store, or completely remove APIs that allow for content blocking? Why would they develop a new extension API that still allows you to block ads at all? Why isn't it possible that the new APIs might have actual ben…

Outright killing adblocking will reduce Chrome's market share significantly. Enough that Chrome may lose its position as the top browser. Its a terrible business decision that can kill Chrome or atleast give a chance for someone else to take their position. Why would they do that?

Crippling enough that most people won't notice is a viable business decision. Introducing a security benefit, inserting a self interest(crippling adblocks while providing vastly inferior alternative) which won't be noticed by most people but they are being secretly compromised behind the scenes since less ads are blocked and are being tracked more effectively is a profitable business tactic. Bringing a benefit along with a profit tactic compromising customers and pretending the said compromise is as big of a detriment to the consumer, which it is not, is whats going on. Is this so hard to see? Its not a FUD but the profiting parties trying to sway the opinions.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#126

Post by fomine3 »

tommy92 wrote: post #125
chlorion wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we have any evidence to support these claims? If Google actually wanted to cripple adblockers, why wouldn't just ban them outright and remove addons used for adblocking purposes from the Chrome extension store, or completely remove APIs that allow for content blocking? Why would they develop a new extension API that still allows you to block ads at all? Why isn't it possible that the new APIs might have actual ben…

Outright killing adblocking will reduce Chrome's market share significantly. Enough that Chrome may lose its position as the top browser. Its a terrible business decision that can kill Chrome or atleast give a chance for someone else to take their position. Why would they do that? Crippling enough that most people won't notice is a viable business decision. Introducing a security benefit, inserting a self interest(cr…

> Outright killing adblocking will reduce Chrome's market share significantly.

I doubt it from market share of Android Chrome https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/mobile/unite...

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#127

Post by foepys »

unethical_ban wrote: post #123

Why does MV3 matter? Fuck Chrome, for a moment. It sounds, to a layman, like an arbitrarily established API for web engines to expose to extension developers. In other words, it isn't HTML5 or HTTP4. Each browser chooses whether to use it. If it is such shit, why is Firefox doing it?

Because Firefox needs extensions and considering their 5% market share if they make their own API they will soon have next to no extensions.

Firefox has always extended the manifest API and will deliver more functionality than required by the spec to give extensions more flexibility.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#128

Post by foepys »

zamalek wrote: post #90
e40 wrote: post #38

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

CNAME cloaking is one of the more significant differences. It's typically used for tracking (and is becoming increasingly common), but also works for advertising. Instead of linking images/scripts/etc. to ads.advertisingcompany.com you can simply set up a CNAME under your TLD that points to the advertising company. Now the domain no longer appears in the blocklist, so all the requests (uploading tracking data, or dow…

> With MV2, uBlock is able to inspect the DNS record while it is vetting the request, thwarting this workaround.

Not in Chrome-based browsers. Only in Firefox.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#129

Post by karottenreibe »

propogandist wrote: post #114
saxonww wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note: uMatrix is not dead, it's just no longer updated. It's still available from the Chrome web store and Firefox add-ons sites. I am using it in Firefox right now, it still works as well as it always has.

it’s not dead and works well, but wont survive the Manifest V3 changeover. It’s the most important extension out there for the savvy web explorer

So switch to Firefox and continue enjoying it after Mv3

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#130

Post by vntok »

zamalek wrote: post #91
vntok wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a look at the bottom of the discussion in that link: > The redirect-rule= filter option is also not compatible with DNR redirect action due to differing matching algorithm. In uBO, redirect filters do not compete with block/allow filters, as the redirect directives are looked up only after a network request has been matched to a block filter, whichever that is. This works differently in the DNR matching a…

> These issues are all fixable by acting as proxy and inspecting/modifying/replacing requests on the fly (in sync/blocking mode). That is not possible in MV3, and is the center of the entire problem.

Which is why when the Chrome team finishes fixing these edge case tickets related to MV3 proxy features, there won't be major issues with uBO anymore.

Note that per its author himself, uBO Lite on MV3 already does the vast majority of the work uBO was doing on MV2, largely enough for regular non-power-users people.

Post reply on HN