Live data from Hacker News

Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

malwarebytes.com

121–130 of 250 posts

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#121

> But Google has decided that block and allow are not that easily abused so it will allow up to 30,000 rules to be added dynamically. Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? > Also, extension developers are limited in what regular expressions they can use, along with other technical limitations. Does this meaningfully impact rules? Just curious. > Accordi…

[deleted]

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#122
post #86
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Firefox/Chrome duopoly"? You're forgetting Safari; they have larger market share than Firefox.

Firefox works very well on iPhone, by the way. It’s my daily browser there.

My understanding was that until next year when EU+UK legislation regulating digital marketplaces comes further into force, all of these iOS apps for browsers like Chrome, Firefox, etc. MUST be wrappers around the exact same Webkit rendering engine that Safari uses. I think it’s cool that everyone can enjoy the better UIs today (myself included), but everything other than the UI is placebo.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#123

I've used Chrome for a decade and there's no way I pick it up if they actually commit to this. That said, they already announced plans to do this once and then backed down for a year due to pushback around MV3. Guess we'll see what happens.

Same here. My whole approach about internet is how I can effectively block ads. If it isn't chrome, it will be something else. No value in using it then

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#124
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason Google wants to remove V2 support is to make implementation changes that V2 currently prevents. This means that a Chromium fork that preserves V2 support will likely have to diverge further and further from Chromium over time (or rather, Chromium will diverge).

[citation needed] I've heard this said a few times but no one has ever supplied any reputable source other than fanciful speculation. It's become such a meme at this point that I'm pretty sure it's just harmful disinformation.

Maybe I succumbed to that meme, I honestly don’t remember. I’m not in favor of what Google is doing. But I’m sure the implementation divergence will happen if V2 support is dropped. It pretty much always does once a public API is removed.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email still working for you without a FAANG host?

Outlook.com isn't FAANG.

But it is GAFAM, which seems to be more relevant when you're looking at things from an overall size perspective. The focus on FAANG never made much sense to me.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#126
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Firefox/Chrome duopoly"? You're forgetting Safari; they have larger market share than Firefox.

Safari's share is capped to a specific hardware. Firefox can grow by converting people without needing to wait for them to buy new devices. That said, I'm not really holding my breath for FF to grow again.

WebKit is portable and is used by a lot of browsers, including on Linux

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#127
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

majority of the people will still use Chrome even if Google literally delists all blockers from the planet. One major reason being "browser migration". The guys on HN crying foul on most of these articles are a vocal minority. This s Google's version of "corner the market and raise the prices". They ll lost 2-5% market share at max

I've been using Firefox some lately because my work has a heavyhanded managed system-wide Chrome profile and one other problem is that Firefox is just buggy and slow in some noticeable ways that Chrome is not.

I often read these kinds of comments on HN and I don’t understand them. I’m using FF on MacOS and it feels like exactly the same experience I used to have on Chrome. Except that I like multi account containers better than Chrome profiles.

I would love for HN commenters to share a recording in which they show this “buggyness”

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#128

Google is going to lose this war. We don't need Chrome.

*Technically inclined users don't need Chrome The average user is going to open Safari or Edge and go to Google or YouTube. They'll see the "this page runs better in Chrome" popup and install Chrome. The installer asks to make it your default browser, so they do. The idea that you can install an addon to the browser isn't even in their toolbox. They aren't aware of the anti-competitive nature of Google. To them, a br…

They don't have to lose 50% of market share to lose this war.

Even a 5% dip will end it.

And technically inclined users are the ones being asked to configure computers for their families etc.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#129
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can someone give an example of what a good number would be? How many dynamic rules are currently used? uBlock's built in list has 47,000 EasyList has 75,000 EasyPrivacy has 31,000 Fanboy's List is 78,000 Basically none of the major lists fit inside this quantity.

Thanks. Has Google explained why the limit is so low? This doesn't seem like it would be super useful to an attacker, or meaningful for performance to change to, say, 150k. They've already raised it.

Has Google explained why the limit is so low?

I don’t think we need the adtech company to make a statement for us to know what’s going on here.

Re: Chrome pushes forward with plans to limit ad blockers in the future

#130

Google is going to lose this war. We don't need Chrome.

*Technically inclined users don't need Chrome The average user is going to open Safari or Edge and go to Google or YouTube. They'll see the "this page runs better in Chrome" popup and install Chrome. The installer asks to make it your default browser, so they do. The idea that you can install an addon to the browser isn't even in their toolbox. They aren't aware of the anti-competitive nature of Google. To them, a br…

Agreed. I look around in my office and no one else than me is running any kind of adblocker. Most people don’t care or don’t even know adblockers exist.
Post reply on HN