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

41–50 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#41

Post by StrLght »

throwaway73945 wrote: post #28

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.

I don't agree with this conclusion. Google is fully responsible for MV3 and its' restrictions. There's no reason to shift blame away from them.

Let's do a thought experiment: if OP hasn't reported it, what do you think would happen then? Even if different ad blockers would find it later and use it, Google would have still removed this. Maybe they'd even remove extensions that have (ab)used it from Chrome Web Store.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#43

Post by dandellion »

Karsteski wrote: post #13
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 tried paying for YouTube premium then they fucked around by not giving me all the features I paid for when I was visiting another country. There's no winning with these people.

I paid premium a few months, then they added shorts and there was no way to block them, so I installed a blocker and stopped paying for it.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#44

Post by _feus »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #39
SuperShibe wrote: post #35

[flagged]

Well, in his defense it would have been patched immediately after the first adblocker used it, and he would have gotten nothing at all out of it. Oh wait he got nothing at all anyway ;)

Not really, this sort of fame farming is what makes candidates stand out in infosec interviews. A bug in Google systems is good for his future career.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#46

Post by iLoveOncall »

lpcvoid wrote: post #23
j45 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You also give money to the creators you watch by watching ads or watching with YouTube premium.

You also can't block ads on iPhones, which a majority of the developed world uses. My girlfriend has never watched a YouTube video on something other than an Apple device for example.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#47

Post by busymom0 »

antisthenes wrote: post #32
throwaway73945 wrote: post #28

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.

Google would have found this bug if any extensions tried to rely on it and patched it instantly anyway.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#49

Post by matheusmoreira »

theoreticalmal wrote: post #36
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.

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 voluntaril…

> I don’t consider being exposed to them as violating the sanctity of my mind

I do. I think it's a form of mind rape. You're trying to read something and suddenly you've got corporations inserting their brands and jingles and taglines into your mind without your consent. That's unacceptable.

> attention is absolutely a currency that can be used to pay for things

No. Attention is a cognitive function. It has none of the properties of currency.

These corporations are sending you stuff for free. They are hoping you will pay attention to the ads. At no point did they charge you any money. You are not obligated to make their advertising campaigns a success.

They are taking a risk. They are assuming you will pay attention. We are entirely within our rights to deny them their payoff. They sent you stuff for free with noise and garbage attached. You can trash the garbage and filter out the noise. They have only themselves to blame.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#50

Post by krackers »

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.

One of the main goals of MV3 seems to be nullifying protection against tracking URLs. Most of the discussion about adblocking technically "still working" under MV3 misses this point. It doesn't matter if you're actually served ads or not, when when your underlying habits can still easily be collected from the combination of fingerprints and tracking URLs.

https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/302

Post reply on HN