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

91–100 of 962 posts

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#91

Post by phendrenad2 »

al_borland wrote: post #66

Even if bigs exists to work around what Google is doing, that isn’t the right way forward. If people don’t agree with Google move, the only correct course of action is to ditch Chrome (and all Chromium browsers). Hit them where it hurts and take away their monopoly over the future direction of the web.

A lot of people seem to believe that switching to a de-Googled Chromium-based browser isn't good enough. I think that's a psyop promoted by Google themselves. Firefox is different enough from Chrome that it's a big jump for people who are used to Chrome. Brave, custom Chromium builds, Vivaldi, etc. are all very similar to Google Chrome, they just don't have Google spy features.

The argument that "Google still controls Chromium so it's not good enough" is exactly the kind of FUD I'd expect to back up this kind of psyop, too.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#92

Post by jowea »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #27
Neywiny wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acc…

Why am I not allowed to trust an extension just as much as I trust the platform it is running on? This is the same logic behind mobile OSes creators deciding what apps can do.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#93

Post by sebmellen »

deryilz wrote: post #38
antisthenes wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Incredibly impressive to do this sort of work before applying to college!

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#94

Post by crazygringo »

rstat1 wrote: post #84
crazygringo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is true though. Like, literally. Doesn't seem true to me. If it's true, then why is uBlock Origin Lite functioning properly as an adblocker for me? > Why do you think it is called Lite? Because it's simpler and uses less resources. And they had to call it something different to distinguish it from uBlock Origin.

Its called Lite because it has tons of missing functionality from the not-Lite version that make the not-Lite version more effective as a content blocker.

It's not "tons of missing functionality". It still blocks all the ads in practice.

Maybe it's less effective in some theoretical case, but not anything I've seen. People talk as if it's only blocking 10% of the ads it used to, when the reality seems to be 99.999% or something. And it's faster now.

And they removed stuff like the element zapper but that has nothing to do with Manifest v3. It's because they literally wanted it to minimize resources. You can install a dedicated zapper extension if you want that.

I genuinely don't understand where this narrative of "adblockers don't work anymore on Chrome" is coming from. Again, it's just not true, but keeps getting repeated like it is.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#95

Post by rstat1 »

deanc wrote: post #60

Chrome full on blocked uBlock Origin (and others) this week. There is still four flags [1] you can play with that will allow you to re-enable it again, but this is a losing battle of course. The inevitable is coming. Nothing comes close to Safari battery life on MacOS, followed by chrome, followed by firefox in last place (with all its other issues - those claiming otherwise have stockholm syndrome). I've tried takin…

>>with all its other issues - those claiming otherwise have stockholm syndrome

What issues? Works just as well as Chrome ever did (before they started blocking extensions at least) for me.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#96

Post by fakedang »

cbeley wrote: post #58
theoreticalmal wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because I want to actually support content creators. I also want it to be more normalized to pay for things vs having ad supported content.

Folks be adopting all sorts of irrational arguments just so they can defend their habits. Do you also prefer having middlemen in other areas such as healthcare and education?

Creators can just as easily pop a Patreon or BuyMeACoffee these days in a few clicks. In fact, most creators constantly admit that Google pays them peanuts for their view counts. But support the leviathan for reasons unknown I guess.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#99

Post by rstat1 »

crazygringo wrote: post #94
rstat1 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its called Lite because it has tons of missing functionality from the not-Lite version that make the not-Lite version more effective as a content blocker.

It's not "tons of missing functionality". It still blocks all the ads in practice. Maybe it's less effective in some theoretical case, but not anything I've seen. People talk as if it's only blocking 10% of the ads it used to, when the reality seems to be 99.999% or something. And it's faster now. And they removed stuff like the element zapper but that has nothing to do with Manifest v3. It's because they literally w…

>>It's not "tons of missing functionality"

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

Okay. Sure.

Re: Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

#100

Post by tredre3 »

zwaps wrote: post #67
crazygringo wrote: post #64

> Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. Pretty convenient (cough cough) for a company that makes most of its revenue from ads to be removing that. Why does this keep getting repeated? It's not true. Anyone can use uBlock Origin Lite with Chrome, and manifest v3. It doesn't just work fine, it works great. I can't tell any difference from the old uBlock Origin in terms of blocking, but it's…

It is true though. Like, literally. Why do you think it is called Lite?

The statement was: "Adblockers basically need webRequestBlocking to function properly. "

This is demonstrably false, ublock lite proves that adblockers can work without it.

Whether or not ublock lite is missing functionalities because of MV3 is irrelevant to the original statement that adblockers need webRequestBlocking.

Post reply on HN