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

201–210 of 486 posts

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

#201

Post by erklik »

edg5000 wrote: post #117
jwr wrote: post #56

Unfortunately, we will all happily accept this. Because using Chrome is "convenient". People will accept anything for convenience — WhatsApp is a good example, where millions of people worldwide happily share and sync their entire phone book with Facebook/Meta. If you care, stop using Chrome. If you criticize this evil move, but continue using Chrome, you are part of the problem.

I switched over to a fully open source environment, at least for mobile/desktop OS, browser, almost all software as well as cloud file storage etc. But with a notable exception where I still use Google Search. Perhaps with the rise of LLMs, one day I will run my own LLM to complete the move to being no longer reliant on monopolists.

Depending on the use-case, I find DDG is far better in many cases in returning sane search results. Might be a option to try. Not entirely open-source but better than the GOOG.

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

#202

Post by nfriedly »

joelthelion wrote: post #87
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…

You can actually use more extensions on Android. It's just more involved than it should be. The trick is to create an "extension collection" from your Mozilla account. Then you can use any extension, and a lot of them just work.

Yeah, I know - I ended up switching to Iceraven on my phone, though. I've heard good things about Mull too. But I didn't want to muddy the original post with all that.

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

#203

Post by meepmorp »

detourdog wrote: post #92
mozball wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iirc remote attestation is reliant on hardware attestation, which means these websites will only run on authorized DRM-enforcing hardware and architectures. Only Intel, AMD, Qualcomm and the like. No open-source firmwares, architectures or hardware.

It's important to remember they are only commercial efforts. If you can value something other than money it doesn't matter what the corporate web is doing compared to human ingenuity and the internet. Let them waste their time and money write their specs.

Normal people interact with the “corporate web,” because they feel compelled to do things like banking, buying stuff, etc.

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

#204

Post by mrweasel »

slondr wrote: post #146
cft wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Edge is just chromium. It is not a competitor.

With few exceptions the browser market is a lot like the Volkswagen Group. They design key components and depending on market segment they slap a Audi, VW or Skoda label on it, do a few tweaks to the look and feel and add a few features that they know that a particular segment wants. Under "chrome" it's a Volkswagen.

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

#205

Post by px43 »

RajT88 wrote: post #163
px43 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> A simple example would be just rejecting ad-blocking extensions from their Chrome store. They've never done anything close to that (including all the manifest v3 hullabaloo where they explicitly worked with ad-blocking teams to help them migrate) so who in their right mind would think that they would try to sneak it in via some fancy new web standard that wouldn't even be able to effectively block ad-blocking if it…

Brave is on the Play store (it's what I use on Mobile), as are several other browsing options with built in ad-blocking support.

Chrome Mobile is very stripped down, but the idea that they disabled all extensions just to get at ad-blockers is completely unfounded.

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

#206

Post by suyash »

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…

If you're using Apple products, your first preference should be Safari. I use that all the time, it's faster, leaner and syncs tabs/history/bookmarks greatly between different Apple devices.

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

#207

Post by kklisura »

Let's say WEI is all good - we trust Google and all of the people involved and it gets passed and implemented. Later on, by gradually changing it, it becomes all of what we feared it will become. How do we get back at that point? Can we even get back to a state before it? How would we fight against it? Do we just stop surfing the web as way of protest? Obviously that won't work.

There's an immense power disbalance about this and any privacy limiting or freedom limiting features. Once they go through, there's no coming back from it.

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

#208

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

rovr138 wrote: post #169
Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lifestyle creep? "Im used to spending too much money so in order to not getting a minimal pay cut im gonna work on unethical proyects." Isthe kind of insane thinking only people at HN seem to say without flinching. Like at that point do not work at google, write ransomware for a company in Russia, they will pay even more money. Make bio weapons for a dictator in a civil war afflicted country of the third world. If…

>"Im used to spending too much money so in order to not getting a minimal pay cut im gonna work on unethical proyects." That also accounts for expenses. Do any of them send money home? Help parents or grandparents? Do any of them had to bring their parents or grandparents to live with them due to health issues? Lifestyle creep takes into account taking on more debt. That debt is not just in luxury like how most peopl…

That is not lifestyle creep, and also those were already on a separate part of your initial question.

Lifestyle creep is believing luxuries or non essentials are essentials due to now them having become part of your day to day.

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

#209

Post by laurentlb »

Zambyte wrote: post #93
capableweb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox is owned by Google You're gonna have to explain why you think this, because publicly, Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way. But maybe you know something the rest of us don't?

> 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!"

> if Google stops funding Mozilla, will it still exist?

If Google stops funding Mozilla, would they manage to get another deal, e.g. with Bing? If so, the power of Google would be limited.

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

#210

Post by liendolucas »

gabereiser wrote: post #184
liendolucas wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely those folks can walk away and put in their CV that they quit because they were in charge of implementing one of the worst ideas the history of internet has seen so far. Wouldn't you hire someone that puts that in their resume?

People don't work for the dignity, they work for the paycheck. As long as people are willing to pay others more for doing this than saving the internet, it will continue the trend. Lashings will continue until morale improves.

> People don't work for the dignity, they work for the paycheck.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that. I do understand that line of thought if you are in a very complicated personal/financial situation but you're stating that the only driver is money, which is clearly wrong...

Post reply on HN