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

uBlock Origin is no longer available on the Chrome Store

chromewebstore.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: uBlock Origin is no longer available on the Chrome Store

#431

Post by harrall »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #151
sneak wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue I have is not that they did it; it’s that they lied about why. Chrome is their project, they should be free to do whatever they want with it. People can use a different browser if they wish (I do). This whole “better for users” bullshit is why I don’t respect Google as a company. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.

I don’t work for Google and genuinely think it’s better for users. It’s always bugged me that ad blockers request arbitrary read write permissions for all websites I visit, and it didn’t seem like that was ever going to change until Chrome forced the issue.

If I’m going to be the devil’s advocate, it’s probably better for performance.

When I maintained a hook-based plugin system, I learned that many programmers do not know data structures or algorithms and would slow down the whole software by writing plugins that looked up rules using extremely slow ways extremely often. And if users wanted to complain about the software being slow, they would always blame me first.

But when I replaced it with rule lists, now I was in control and could implement fast data structures.

Re: uBlock Origin is no longer available on the Chrome Store

#432

Post by zzbzq »

internetter wrote: post #221
blockme69 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well hopefully Google will pay the price for their greed soon enough. https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/03/doj-google-must-sell-...

They won't under the trump admin

Trump's DoJ just submitted basically the same remedy proposal last Friday, it's on

Re: uBlock Origin is no longer available on the Chrome Store

#433

Post by wkat4242 »

gruez wrote: post #295
Fluorescence wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People scratch their heads about how "just a default setting" can be worth an annual $20 billion payment from Google. It makes more sense if it's actually for a raft of wildly illegal under-the-table measures this. Imagine what it would cost Google's bottom line if Apple was truly user-focused and enabled ad-blocking on desktop, mobile and embedded safari views by default. Someone do the napkin math please!

This conspiracy theory doesn't make sense because safari's content blockers (ie. the nerfed version of adblock) block most ads just fine, especially from google ads. The only ads that get through are first party ads (eg. youtube), but as of a few years ago adblockers could block those as well, so it's a moot point.

For me the element blockers are the most important of all. It's not just about blocking ads. It's about making websites more usable. Ads are only one of those detrimental points. Many websites bombard you with big photos of their articles. I block all that with custom blocklists so the end result is a lot more like here at hacker news.

Re: uBlock Origin is no longer available on the Chrome Store

#434

Post by dylan604 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #151
sneak wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue I have is not that they did it; it’s that they lied about why. Chrome is their project, they should be free to do whatever they want with it. People can use a different browser if they wish (I do). This whole “better for users” bullshit is why I don’t respect Google as a company. Don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining.

I don’t work for Google and genuinely think it’s better for users. It’s always bugged me that ad blockers request arbitrary read write permissions for all websites I visit, and it didn’t seem like that was ever going to change until Chrome forced the issue.

It's my computer. I will run code that I choose and disallow code that I choose. If I choose to run code that blocks your code, that's my prerogative. Whether that's a full blown right is another topic.

You're just pissed because I've chosen to block your code in software you created. Next, you'll tell me I have to watch your programming on a TV I bought with your code on it.

The idea that we have to do anything that evilCorp wants us to do is just insane that people have come to the point of accepting that.

Re: uBlock Origin is no longer available on the Chrome Store

#436

Post by justmarc »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #430
bearjaws wrote: post #4

Nobody could have possibly seen it coming that Google would abuse its market position to their own benefit... I migrated off Chrome as soon as this BS story about improving privacy, a joke coming from Google. Then the excuse was "well it improves performance", which they could easily do by marking extensions as low performance. If Google wanted to improve this they have an entire search engine where they could re-ran…

It is the gaslighting that is so annoying and insulting. An entity of such power and reach resorting to manipulation is disconcerting. Everyone will call them on it. Why not be straight with their intentions? An advertising company optimizing their technology to better support their business while improving security.

Improving the security of their income stream :)

Re: uBlock Origin is no longer available on the Chrome Store

#437

Post by glenstein »

jordanb wrote: post #193
bad_user wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name a project whose development costs as much as Firefox and that survives from donations. Many people want AI in their browser. And what does Firefox have to do with crypto?

> Name a project whose development costs as much as Firefox and that survives from donations. Wikipedia.

I think it absolutely would be great if a Wikipedia-like model were viable, but Wikipedia is like the extreme high watermark for that, and they get five billion visits a month, which I think is an order of magnitude higher than what Firefox has access to. Ramping up to Wikipedia scale levels of donations would be a serious project and a significant gamble.

Wikipedia has also been around as long as the internet itself and its current fundraising drives are the culmination of decades of momentum and cultivating a perception of the compact that exists between them and their users.

Also, I believe that even in the best of times Wikipedia is raising about half as much as it costs to run Firefox.

There's probably important caveats that relate to comparing software development projects with resources and content, because I think the most successful donation-driven examples are Wikipedia, NPR, and The Guardian. And what they seem to have in common is generating content to be consumed.

In terms of software development projects, to me the most natural analogy is something like VLC, which does indeed rely on donations and is orders of magnitudes smaller. Or maybe the Tor project which does rely on donations, but I think they're at the order of like 10 million or so, which is certainly promising, but not a like for like substitution for the revenue they get from Google.

Re: uBlock Origin is no longer available on the Chrome Store

#439

Post by gruez »

F7F7F7 wrote: post #407
gruez wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody could have possibly seen it coming that Google would abuse its market position to their own benefit... Doesn't Safari have the same restriction, also ostensibly for "security/privacy" reasons? The only difference is that Apple doesn't have a web advertising presence, so you can't make the accusation that they're "abuse its market position to their own benefit".

Whataboutism is so lazy.

It's not whataboutism. If the claim is that google's actions with manifest v3 is "abusing its market position to their own benefit", but Apple did the same thing when it didn't stand to benefit from it, then it severely undermines that claim.

Sure, it doesn't rule out google was secretly intending on doing it, only internal memos or whatever can prove that definitively. But at the same time, to immediately conclude that google was "abusing its market position", you would have to be maximally uncharitable to google. That's a sad way to see the world. Take for instance, the flak that google got for banning third party cookies. If this is done by anyone else (eg. Firefox), this would be seen as a good thing. However, cynics have opposed this on the basis that such change would disadvantage third party ad networks more than google, thus google was "abusing its market position to their own benefit" and therefore the change was bad.

Re: uBlock Origin is no longer available on the Chrome Store

#440

Post by hnpolicestate »

jrflowers wrote: post #406
hnpolicestate wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to take the CEO's philosophy into account when choosing technology tools unfortunately. I personally dmd Eich on Twitter during 2019-2021 ish. He's opposed to censorship, tracking, government lockdowns during COVID, and authoritarianism. That is exactly who you want running your browser and search company if you wish to use an open Internet. It's anti chat control, anti governments choosing which apps it's c…

> He's opposed to […] government lockdowns during COVID > That is exactly who you want running your browser and search company Yes. “Does the CEO have strong opinions on public health? Are those opinions based more on public health fundamentals or is it vibes?” is the first line of inquiry I pursue when I am looking to download a program on the computer

No. You don't want someone who believes in vaccine passports and lockdowns running your browser if you truly value an open and free internet with roadblocks to tracking, fingerprinting etc.

No CEO or developer is going to respect to software/hardware users if they believe that user should also use health verification software to go about public spaces. These are incompatible philosophies.

Post reply on HN