Live data from Hacker News

Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

0x44.xyz

31–40 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#31
post #21
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 wish I could browse the web kinda like this but minus the human:

Make Signal video call to someone in front of a laptop, provide verbal instructions on what to click on, read to my liking, and hang up to be connected with someone else next time.

(EFF’s Cover Your Tracks seems to suggest fresh private tabs w/iCloud Private Relay & AdGuard is ineffective. VMs/Cloud Desktops exist but there are apparently telltale signs when those are used, though not sure how easily linkable back to acting user. Human-in-the-loop proxy via encrypted video calls seems to solve _most_ things, except it’s stupid and would be really annoying even with an enthusiastic pool of volunteers. VM + TOR/I2P should be fine for almost anybody though I guess, just frustrated the simple commercial stuff is ostensibly partially privacy theater.)

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#32

So OP got Google to patch a harmless "issue" that could've been used by addon devs to bypass MV3 restrictions. Hope it was worth the $0.

Yeah, that was my take as well. OP did some free work for a megacorp and made the web a little bit worse, because "security, I guess" ?

Good job.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#33
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.

They rolled out the Chrome "kill adblockers" update globally then unleashed the new wave of YouTube "anti-adblock" a month later. While in a literal losing court case thats suggesting Chrome be split out from Google as a whole. They must be so confident nothing can touch them.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#34
post #25

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?

Because by paying you are demonstrating you have more than enough disposable income to waste on their extortion. You're paying for the privilege of segmenting yourself into the richer echelons of the market. You're basically doing their marketing job for them and paying for the privilege.

At some point some shareholder value maximizing CEO is going to sit down and notice just how much money he's leaving on the table by not advertising to paying customers like you. It's simply a matter of time.

Take a third option. Don't pay them and block their ads. Block their data collection too. It's your computer, you are in control.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#36
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.

That’s quite a stretch. I loathe ads as much as anyone else here, but I don’t consider being exposed to them as violating the sanctity of my mind (is my mind even sacrosanct, such that it could be violated?) it’s just something I don’t like.

And yes, attention is absolutely a currency that can be used to pay for things. Like any other voluntary transaction, no one is entitled to my attention unless we both voluntarily agree to it.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#37
post #17
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.

I get an ad-free YouTube experience for $0 with software. Why do you pay for it?

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#38

So OP got Google to patch a harmless "issue" that could've been used by addon devs to bypass MV3 restrictions. Hope it was worth the $0.

Yeah, that was my take as well. OP did some free work for a megacorp and made the web a little bit worse, because "security, I guess" ? Good job.

Sometimes you get $0, sometimes you get more. I would like to mention this stuff on my college applications, and even if I tried to gatekeep it, it'd eventually be patched. Not sure what your argument is here.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#40
post #20

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?

The little I've read bout this says that maintaining MV2 might be something as well. If other chromium based browsers didn't have this issue, that would be great, but likely in time Youtube won't support browsers that don't have MV3. Probably still have some time though.

Switched to Firefox yesterday, I suggest you do the same.
Post reply on HN