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

Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

stackdiary.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 486 posts

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#151

Post by nottorp »

FormulatedEdits wrote: post #95
andrenotgiant wrote: post #29

This is a dumb article that's trying and failing to tie Attestation to ad blocking. > However, how this plays out with browsers that allow extensions or are modified remains a grey area. As the proposal vaguely mentions, "Web Environment Integrity attests the legitimacy of the underlying hardware and software stack, it does not restrict the indicated application’s functionality." That's not vague at all.

And if ad-blockers are considered illegitimate software? This would be entirely in line with financial incentives of the proposed attesters and even logically defensible (oh well, we haven’t vetted uBlock, so you can’t browse with that installed).

And if I want to use links on z80?

And aside from niche platforms, do you want the 3 big companies to decide what you're allowed to see on the internet?

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#153

Post by dillydogg »

cft wrote: post #112
nfriedly wrote: post #57

I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Awful stuff like this wouldn't stand a chance if Google didn't have such a near-monopoly position. For the sake of the open internet, please switch to a different browser. IMO, Firefox is best*, but even something chromium based is probably fine. Just not Google Chrome. * On desktop - Firefox is a bit weaker on Android, with an ex…

I use Edge. I think Edge is a realistically viable competitor, especially with Bing chat sidebar. It's also faster than Safari on MacOS

I think the person you are responding to would say that edge is just another chromium skin. It doesn't exactly relieve Google's monopoly on browser technology

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#155

Post by nfriedly »

edg5000 wrote: post #97
nfriedly wrote: post #57

I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Awful stuff like this wouldn't stand a chance if Google didn't have such a near-monopoly position. For the sake of the open internet, please switch to a different browser. IMO, Firefox is best*, but even something chromium based is probably fine. Just not Google Chrome. * On desktop - Firefox is a bit weaker on Android, with an ex…

I agree, I use Firefox everywhere. But we must not forget the following: In 2011 Mozilla income was 85% derrived from Google, through the primary search engine deal. Around a billion was paid over three years as part of this deal at some point. Appearantly there was bidding by Microsoft for making Bing the default, which pushed up the pricing. So every time Mozilla speaks out against Google, it is a bit awkward, sinc…

Yeah, I mentioned this in another comment: it's really a shame that Mozilla spends the majority of that money (often poorly IMO), instead of putting it into an endowment fund or something similar that would leave them in a much better position for the long run.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#156

Post by rvnx »

eis wrote: post #111
Zambyte wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way. Who owns Mozilla? Put another way, if Google stops funding Mozilla, will it still exist? The only reason Firefox exists is because Google wants something they can point to in court and say "look! we're not a monopoly!"

The shareholders of Mozilla own Mozilla. And that's not Google. If Google stopped the search deal then Bing would take over in a second.

At a much lower price, because search deals are paid based on number of searches done (so indirectly, the number of active users), and because Google has 90%-ish market share, it means a 90% drop in revenue.

Also, Bing has on average twice higher RPMs, so, a 50% of drop in income after rev-share.

So, you remove 90% of the revenue, and you divide by 2 what is remaining.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#157

Post by rovr138 »

ModernMech wrote: post #125
rovr138 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much is the cost of living? Lifestyle creep? Do they have anyone at home sick and they're the only ones working while also living in a high cost of living area? It's not that easy.

Standing up for your principles is never easy when it counts the most. Usually it's going to cost something. Sometimes that's a fat salary and a cushy job.

And is everyone, or should everyone, be willing to risk that fat salary, cushy job, benefits for their principles if it means risking the quality of life for their family?

Do any of them support a sick kid, spouse, parent? Any of them send money home?

All I'm saying is that some of them might not be in a situation in which they could, on a whim, risk getting fired. And we shouldn't blame them because the fix for that is not on their hands.

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#158

Post by kentrado »

nfriedly wrote: post #113
Zambyte wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's true that Mozilla gets the vast majority of their income from Google and has, IMO absolutely squandered most of it. If Mozilla had put most of its income into an endowment fund instead of hiring tons of staff for a miriad of now-mostly-canceled projects, they'd be in a much better position today. (Hindsight is 20-20 and all that.) But I think it's an overstatement to say that Google owns Firefox. I donate monthl…

Why do you donate money when you have acknowledged that the CEO is wasting it?

Re: Google engineers want to make ad-blocking (near) impossible

#159

Post by merth »

mosen wrote: post #20
_ZeD_ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, the whole concept of "ads" is a bit evil by itself

Could you please elaborate?

emotional brainwashing(entertaintment, fear etc) people to buy stuff that they don't need. taking advantage of people's weakness. it's not like "this is our product, this is what it does, and this is the price of it" instead "your neighbour has this cool stuff but you don't means you are lesser person if you don't buy also", "if you don't buy this stuff, you won't get a girlfriend and die alone", "if you don't buy this stuff, you will miss out amazing opportunity of becoming rich and stuck as poor"
Post reply on HN