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

421–430 of 486 posts

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

#421

Post by nfriedly »

signa11 wrote: post #226
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 hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. not sure how far using 'ungoogled-chromium' takes you though.

I'd say it's certainly better than using Google Chrome.

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

#422

Post by 7e »

mozball wrote: post #78
Adverblessly wrote: post #32

It isn't just "make ad-blocking (near) impossible" as the current title of the submission suggests. It is: Make browsing the internet possible only on Chrome, Safari or Edge (with no modifications or extensions). No competition allowed in browsers. Make browsing the internet possible only on macOS, Windows, Android or iOS (no custom Android distributions, definitely no LineageOS or GrapheneOS or whatever). No competi…

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.

Remote attestation, including hardware attestation, is absolutely compatible with open source.

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

#423

Post by caskstrength »

vamc19 wrote: post #356
zb3 wrote: post #50

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

I find it interesting that the author thinks "invasive user fingerprinting" would stop with WEI. If you really believe ad networks are _only_ fingerprinting users to fight fraud and will stop doing it after WEI, I have a bridge to sell you. How else are they going to learn more about me and shove ads that they think I care about?

> If you really believe ad networks are _only_ fingerprinting users to fight fraud and will stop doing it after WEI, I have a bridge to sell you.

I very much doubt author himself believes that.

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

#424

Post by lukas099 »

cmilton wrote: post #183
vultour wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Victim blaming is absolutely the correct approach here. Of course you shouldn't blame your grandma for using Chrome, but people on HN are a completely different audience. HN readers should be well aware of the damage Google is causing to the open internet, using Chrome is tantamount to supporting this effort.

What should HN readers do that are forced to work within these ecosystems? Ex. Work, school. It’s not always so easy to walk away from an entire platform. People’s entire livelihoods could be based around Google. I don’t see any issue with Google owning some of this responsibility.

I don't think they were talking about people who are forced to use chrome.

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

#425

Post by nfriedly »

bob1029 wrote: post #320
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…

What does HN think about Mozilla adding some premium tier of the browser itself for a small subscription fee? I already subscribe to MDN out of sheer principle, and would be OK substituting some bullshit like Hulu if it would help even more... I am willing to pay the true cost of the "open" web, whatever it is. Just tell me how much and where to sign. Money is going to be a required tool to fight back against google,…

I just donate to the Mozilla Foundation each month: https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/

I feel like they could do better, but on the whole, I'm happy with what they provide to everyone for free.

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

#426

Post by friend_and_foe »

Why the fuck we let an ad company have any say whatsoever in web standards is beyond me. Of course they want to turn the web into a billboard. If they could they'd beam ads directly into your dreams. The answer to this, and anything else proposed by google until they can prove good faith, is "no".

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

#427

Post by slowmovintarget »

liendolucas wrote: post #413
gabereiser wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it may not be your experience, but 95% of us work because we need the money.

I do need an income too. I do pay rent, every single month. I do pay a loan, every single month. Bills? You guessed it: every single month. What's your point, really?

People are going to take their pay and do their job because to do otherwise could mean they can't maintain their lifestyle or keep their family provided to the same standard they're currently living at.

Altruism is not a default position, and is unusual in the real world.

I'm not saying that's how it should be, or that people shouldn't work to make it otherwise. But you say why don't all those people walk away from that? How far would you go? What if you had children depending on you? It's very easy to condemn other people as "greedy" but you show a lack of understanding, of empathy, perhaps, for how people in general function in the world if you assume they should just do what you say because "obviously, my moral stance trumps their concerns."

Edit: I upvoted your other comment, by the way, where you lay out the very scenario I speak of. Many people are "screwed" because their lifestyle has expanded to their current circumstance. Few people realize that progress in some dimension rarely rules out regress back along the same path. Liberty requires maintenance, because there will always be societal forces aimed at eroding it.

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

#428

Post by allarm »

gabereiser wrote: post #408
liendolucas wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

it may not be your experience, but 95% of us work because we need the money.

The good thing is that there are multiple sources of getting money.

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

#429

Post by lazylion2 »

jwr wrote: post #412
westernpopular wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp and Chrome is apples and oranges - not using WhatsApp comes at a social cost (especially in countries like Germany and India where almost everyone uses it) because you can no longer communicate with other WhatsApp users or participate in group chats. Not using Chrome comes with zero cost - you can use the same websites everyone else is using, just use Firefox.

> Not using Chrome comes with zero cost - you can use the same websites everyone else is using, just use Firefox. Not quite. Increasingly, as Chrome became popular, you get websites that "work better in Chrome". Or do not work at all in other browsers. And you hear recommendations to "just use Chrome", so that things work. It's just more convenient all around.

Been using Firefox for many years, have to switch to Chrome maybe twice a year

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

#430

Post by friend_and_foe »

capableweb wrote: post #89
Zambyte wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 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?

Are you going to continue to pretend that you don't know what he means?
Post reply on HN