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

361–370 of 486 posts

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

#361

Post by jeroenhd »

codedokode wrote: post #289
jeroenhd wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What attestation the website accepts entirely depends on the configuration. There's nothing in the spec that will prevent attestations for Linux computers. Linux already works perfectly fine with secure boot and such, I don't see why a signed bootloader starting a signed attestation engine wouldn't be trusted by third party websites. It'll kill open platforms like the rare open source RISC-V implementations, but for…

> I don't see why a signed bootloader starting a signed attestation engine wouldn't be trusted by third party websites. Do you mean a kind of Linux where root cannot do anything he wants? Like Android?

Yes, a kind of Linux like Ubuntu or Fedora that already boots with secure boot enabled with full support of TPMs and similar technologies. The kind of Linux 99% of Linux users are running today.

More secure variants like Android, leveraging SELinux and such, help with sandboxing but I don't think that SELinux is a struct requirement.

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

#362

Post by taneq »

gaudat wrote: post #90
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…

>Firefox is a bit weaker on Android, with an extemely limited set of extensions Definitely not with the Iceweasel fork. https://github.com/fork-maintainers/fenix

Is that the one that harangues you any time you load a page with non-GPL'd JavaScript on it? Because that was incredibly annoying.

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

#363

Post by funOtter »

zb3 wrote: post #50

The latest, tone-deaf response from a Google engineer: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...

> We want to continue the discussion and collaborate to address your core concerns

> An owner of this repository has limited the ability to comment

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

#364

Post by d--b »

rainonmoon wrote: post #99
d--b wrote: post #34

I think they are signing the end of chrome dominance. People are going to flee to Firefox.

I keep seeing this comment on Hacker News and it makes me wonder. Do you only speak to engineers in your life? I'm on the side of people who think this is a violent threat against the openness of the web, but let's be real. Most of the people you'll run into on the street will have no better sense of this than they did the paradigm shift to HTTPS. In fact it will likely be even more transparent than that, which is pa…

A quick Google Search says 42% of internet users use some kind of ad blockers. The web with ads and without ads is a vastly different experience.

I don't think people are going to mobilize for privacy! I think people will just jump ship to avoid giant banners...

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

#365

Post by jeroenhd »

jasonjayr wrote: post #324
jeroenhd wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What attestation the website accepts entirely depends on the configuration. There's nothing in the spec that will prevent attestations for Linux computers. Linux already works perfectly fine with secure boot and such, I don't see why a signed bootloader starting a signed attestation engine wouldn't be trusted by third party websites. It'll kill open platforms like the rare open source RISC-V implementations, but for…

Linux computers with an approved boot chain and software environment. Gentoo users are out, as is anyone making a custom kernel.

Gentoo users and people running Nvidia drivers and the like will be out, that's true. That's very different from "only certain architectures allowed", though.

Even still, there are ways to implement this using an open source, signed, reproducibly built daemon that gets loaded early in the boot process. Altering the daemon would've out of the question but it would solve the more immediate problem of "Netflix doesn't work" that most people would actually care about.

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

#366

Post by RajT88 »

px43 wrote: post #345
RajT88 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Brave is on the play store" is a very similar argument to "You do not have to use IE, you can install Netscape". And subject to the same logical holes.

Why? If it were a browser extension, you would still have to install that manually too. Are you mad that Google doesn't ship ad-blocking functionality by default in their standard build?

Google - a company that makes most of its money on ads - removed the ability to install ad blocking extensions on the default mobile browser for over 2 billion devices.

If that does not seem shady to you, then I will be unable to make you understand the point.

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

#367

Post by OGWhales »

mozball wrote: post #285
concordDance wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arent everyday astronaught, practical engineering and tom Scott available on their own websites?

I visited Practical engineering and tom scott's websites and AFAI seen they embed youtube videos in their websites. I couldn't find astronaught's website. Its not even linked to in his youtube channel.

He has article versions of his videos which you can find linked in the description of his YouTube videos. The videos on his website are just linked to YouTube however.

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

#368

Post by out_of_protocol »

detourdog wrote: post #218
meepmorp wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Those normal activities like banking is a corporate service and I'm happy with it's regulation and it makes sense to be regulated. Buying stuff is on a spectrum and I think a consumer should be able to chose a tightly regulated system for exchanging currency. Most everything else should be free to choose.

E.g. McDonald's android app, at this moment. It doesn't launch on devices which fail Safety Net checks, i.e. modified firmware

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

#369

Post by scrollaway »

endominus wrote: post #136
scrollaway wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Victim blaming BS. Let's see who else is the problem. How about all those engineers who decided not to contribute to Firefox? Or all those website developers who didn't test their site in Firefox? Or hell, why not all those Mozilla engineers who didn't fix Firefox hard enough? Let's put the blame where it actually is. Google is…

Firstly, the examples you gave are dissimilar; GP is pointing out a positive action (choosing a specific browser) while you're emphasizing negative ones ( not doing specific things to contribute to Firefox). Secondly, they did not say that the user is to blame for the situation, merely that they are part of the problem, which is trivially true; Google would not be able to do what they are without a large number of pe…

> choosing a specific browser

Most people "choose" a specific browser like I "choose" my landlord when I move in to a new place. It's what's there.

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

#370

Post by jefftk »

nulbyte wrote: post #296
jefftk wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does fixed pricing mean you don't need to care about bots? The site claims they get 1M visitors per day; should an advertiser believe them?

No, of course not. An advertiser should conduct do actual diligence, experiment, and find what works. I am reminded of a story of a retailer who adódnak l accidently stopped advertising online and so no adverse change in sales. While I can't find the exact one I have in mind, it seems this isn't rare. https://www.forbes.com/sites/augustinefou/2021/01/02/when-bi...

It depends what kind of advertising you're doing. For performance advertising, where you want someone to take an action right away (click an ad, complete a sale) not totally works. Performance advertisers are generally willing to deal with counterparties they don't trust at all because it's easy for them to see if they are getting their money work.

On the other hand, most of the money in advertising today is in brand advertising. No one clicks through an ad for Ford or Coke and buys immediately. You can run experiments on these at a very coarse level, but that level is approximately "the English speaking internet". Which means brand advertisers are willing to pay far more if they know real people are seeing their ads.

(I used to work in ads, but quit a year ago and have no plans to go back)

Post reply on HN