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

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

0x44.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#21

Post by Neywiny »

krackers wrote: post #4

>They decided it wasn't a security issue, and honestly, I agree, because it didn't give extensions access to data they didn't already have. So they admit that MV3 isn't actually any more secure than MV2?

I'd be shocked if anyone actually believes them. This article starts with the obvious conflict of interest. Of course letting an extension know what websites you visit and what requests are made is an insecure lifestyle. But I still do it because I trust uBO more than I trust the ad companies and their data harvesters.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#22

Post by jamesfmilne »

labrador wrote: post #9

I'd gladly pay for YouTube without ads if I trusted that it would remain ad free, but the track record from various companies on this is not good.

I've been paying for YouTube premium for probably 2 years now. Never had any inserted ads. Only the "this video is sponsored by" stuff, which you can just skip over.

I can't possibly go back to non-Premium YouTube, and if they mess around with Premium I'll probably be moving on from YouTube.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#23

Post by lpcvoid »

j45 wrote: post #17
labrador wrote: post #9

I'd gladly pay for YouTube without ads if I trusted that it would remain ad free, but the track record from various companies on this is not good.

Youtube premium has remained adfree as far as I know. Best to try it out yourself. I can't watch Youtube with Ads ever anymore. If a 100% Ad-free youtube premium at the current price point ever went away, something would have to change about the ads.

Nah, Firefox with ublock origin is better than giving money to google.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#24

Post by perching_aix »

daft_pink wrote: post #3

So what’s the conclusion? Can we use a different Chrome based browser and avoid MV3? What’s the decision for privacy after this has happened?

This blogpost covers a workaround they discovered that would have let MV3 extensions access important functionality that was not normally available, only in MV2.

This workaround was fixed the same year in 2023 and yielded a $0 payout, on the basis that Google did not consider it a security vulnerability.

The conclusion then is that uBO (MV2) stopped working for me today after restarting my computer, I suppose.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#25

Post by luoc »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #19
labrador wrote: post #9

I'd gladly pay for YouTube without ads if I trusted that it would remain ad free, but the track record from various companies on this is not good.

Paying to avoid ads just makes your attention even more valuable to them. Always block them unconditionally and without any payment. Ads are a violation of the sanctity of our minds. They are not entitled to our attention. It's not currency to pay for services with.

Can you elaborate a bit? Why would that make my attention more valuable than other's?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#26

Post by j45 »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #11
labrador wrote: post #9

I'd gladly pay for YouTube without ads if I trusted that it would remain ad free, but the track record from various companies on this is not good.

So pay now and stop paying if they introduce ads? It's not like it's a lifetime subscription. I've been paying for it for a year+ for my girlfriend who was watching more ads than content and we've never seen ads since.

Totally, there's not a lot of places to vote with your dollars to get rid of interruptions like Ads, and also get back a lot of time of your life.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#27

Post by matheusmoreira »

Neywiny wrote: post #21
krackers wrote: post #4

>They decided it wasn't a security issue, and honestly, I agree, because it didn't give extensions access to data they didn't already have. So they admit that MV3 isn't actually any more secure than MV2?

I'd be shocked if anyone actually believes them. This article starts with the obvious conflict of interest. Of course letting an extension know what websites you visit and what requests are made is an insecure lifestyle. But I still do it because I trust uBO more than I trust the ad companies and their data harvesters.

I believe them. The restrictions are reasonable and appropriate for nearly everyone. Extensions are untrusted code that should have as little access as possible. If restrictions can be bypassed, that's a security bug that should be fixed because it directly affects users.

I also think uBlock Origin is so important and trusted it should not only be an exception to the whole thing but should also be given even more access in order to let it block things more effectively. It shouldn't even be a mere extension to begin with, it should be literally built into the browser as a core feature. The massive conflicts of interest are the only thing that prevent that. Can't trust ad companies to mantain ad blockers.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#29

Post by tyre »

luoc wrote: post #25
matheusmoreira wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying to avoid ads just makes your attention even more valuable to them. Always block them unconditionally and without any payment. Ads are a violation of the sanctity of our minds. They are not entitled to our attention. It's not currency to pay for services with.

Can you elaborate a bit? Why would that make my attention more valuable than other's?

If you are a paying subscriber, you are self-identifying as (likely) a higher net-worth. The problem for ad platforms allowing paid opt-out is that the most valuable users leave the network.

Then they have to go to advertisers and say, “advertise on our network where all the wealthier people are not.” A brand like Tiffany’s or Rolex (both huge advertisers) aren’t going to opt into that.

Post reply on HN